Preamble

The House—after Adjournment on 1st April for the Easter Recess—met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Doncaster Corporation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Bolton Corporation Bill,

As amended, to he considered upon Monday next.

Great Western Railway Bill,

Hackney Borough Council Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Birmingham Canal Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

Bristol Cemetery Bill [Lords],

Bristol Water Bill [Lords],

Brompton, Chatham, Gillingham, and Rochester Water Bill [Lords],

Serle Street and Cook's Court Improvement Company Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Bermondsey Borough Council (Street Trading) Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Friday.

Bethlem Hospital Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday, 10th May.

Pontefract Corporation Bill (by Order), Second Reading deferred till Friday.

Dunfermline and District Tramways (Extension) Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Marriages Provisional Order Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the inability of the Food Council to consider questions regarding thy accuracy and relative merits of various types of weighing and measuring instruments at present in use, he is prepared to institute inquiries into the working and administration of the Weights and Measures Act?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): As at present advised, I am not prepared to institute an inquiry of the kind suggested. The whole administration of the Weights and Measures Act is constantly under review, and the existing law appears to be sufficient to ensure that no undesirable type of weighing instrument shall be used in trade. It is, of course, impossible completely to prevent the fraudulent manipulation of any type of weighing machine, but I hope shortly to introduce a Bill to strengthen the law by making the giving of short weight a penal offence.

Sir D. NEWTON: In view of the delay of the Department in dealing with the question of petrol pumps, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that some investigation into the work of the administration of the Weights and Measures Act is called for?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. The delay in dealing with petrol pumps does not lie at the door of the Department. It is because the Bill to give us the power to deal with them has not yet passed the two Houses. It has passed another place and I hope it will soon be through here.

MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the resolution passed at a meeting of traders called by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, condemning the Merchandise Marks Bill on account of the injury it would inflict on the trade of the country; and whether, in view of the opposition of so representative a body of those concerned, he is prepared to revise the provisions of the Bill?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. I have not received from the Association any such resolution.

MOTOR INDUSTRY.

Mr. WELLS: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many new factories have been opened in the motor manufacturing industry, and the number of hands employed since 1st July of last year?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I regret that this information is not available, but my attention has been called to statements in the Press regarding the establishment, or projected establishment, of three new factories, and the extension of a number of factories previously in existence.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

WRAPPING PAPER.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of wrapping paper imported into this country during the months of March, 1925 and 1926?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The imports of packing wrapping paper (excluding tissue paper) in March, 1925, amounted to 405,142 cwts., and in March, 1926, to 475,960 cwts.

Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Does not this increase show the necessity of hastening the introduction of the Safeguarding of Industries Measures for this industry?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes I think it does.

Lieut.- Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Will my right hon. Friend hasten it?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes.

Mr. HARRIS: Is it not a fact that there is a steady decrease in the amount of unemployment in the paper trade, according to figures given in the House?

APPLICATIONS.

Mr. WELLS: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many industries that have made applications for safeguarding are having their cases considered at the present time?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The number of applications at present under consideration, or awaiting further information from the applicants, is seven.

Oral Answers to Questions — SILK DUTIES.

Mr. WELLS: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many new factories have been opened in the silk or
artificial silk industry, and the number of hands employed since 1st July of last year?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand that 10 artificial silk factories have started in this country since 1st July, of which five are in the experimental stage and five are producing; six more are expected to be started shortly. As regards silk factories, I have no information other than that appearing in the Press. This indicates that extensions are being made, and that several new undertakings are equipping factories.

Mr. HANNON: 33.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of revenue which has been collected by His Majesty's Customs and Excise in respect of duty on silk and silk products imported into this country since the imposition of the Silk Duties; and the amount of revenue which has been collected by His Majesty's Customs in respect of fines levied on persons attempting to evade the duties on silk and silk products?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The net Customs revenue collected in respect of imported silk and artificial silk goods between 1st July last and 31st March, 1926, was approximately £2,591,000. The fines received up to 28th February, 1926, in connection with attempts at evasion of the Silk and Artificial Silk Duties, amount to £3,103.

Mr. FENBY: Can. the right hon. Gentleman tell us how those figures compare with the estimate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Oral Answers to Questions — LIFE SAVING AT SEA.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that in recent marine disasters in many cases the death of passengers or members of the crew has resulted from exposure in the water, or the consequences thereof, where persons were equipped with the regulation lifebelt; whether he has considered the desirability of introducing regulations compelling shipping companies to adopt more up-to-date and modern life-saving devices; and whether he will take steps to amend the present regulations in order to make the safety-first
principle applicable to crews and passengers on sea as it is on land?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the Report made by the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee in December, 1922, on life-saving appliances, and would call his attention to the remarks made by a subcommittee of that body on the question of exposure. The possible value of special appliances was recognised, but on practical grounds it was decided not to suggest a compulsory requirement.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEEL HOUSES, SCOTLAND.

Mr. HARDIE: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the price paid for land to erect steel houses upon in the Shettleston district of Glasgow, and what was the rate-able value?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I am informed that the price paid for the site for steel houses at Shettleston was £10,425, and that the rate-able value of the land as appearing in the valuation roll was £133.

Mr. HARDIE: Are the Government, through the Secretary of State for Scotland, going to take any steps to prevent this big difference between the rate-able value of the land and what they pay for it when they want to build houses?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir.

Mr. HARDIE: Have the Government instructed the right hon. Gentleman that in future land shall be bought at the rate-able value?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, the land is being bought in the ordinary open market at a most reasonable price.

Mr. HARDIE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think the difference between the price he gave and that at which it is valued is a fair price?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House, in as few words as possible, what has happened to the land that there is such a difference in the price when once we are going to acquire it in order to build upon it?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of debate.

Mr. STEPHEN: What steps is the right hon. Gentleman going to take to prevent this profiteering by the people owning land?

Mr. HARDIE: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the extra cost of foundations for steel houses in the Garngad area are to be borne by the Government or by the Second National Scottish Housing Company?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The extra costs of foundations for the steel houses in the Garngad area will be borne by the Second Scottish National Housing Company (Housing Trust), Limited.

Mr. HARDIE: Since before purchasing the land no particular pains were taken to see whether it was suitable for building or not, is it not the fact that the Government have to pay this money?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Does the extra cost of the foundations include the increased wages which were promised to the labourers but which have not yet been paid on the Weir houses?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The question of foundations and the price paid for the land have nothing to do with the rate of wages.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The question says "extra cost of foundations." That, I take it, includes the extra wages promised to be paid to the labourers on these foundations.

Sir J. GILMOUR: No. When the company bought the land the cost of the foundations was taken into consideration when the price was paid for the land.

Mr. STEPHEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the extra cost will not mean an increase of the proposed rent for the houses?

Mr. HARDIE: Since there are extra costs, are they to be borne altogether apart from the calculations made on the cost of the houses and the rent that will be based on that cost?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No. In this case the land was already laid out for housing, with drains and roads already made, and the cost was based on these circumstances.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to take any steps to suppress individuals who charge that exorbitant price?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for legislation.

Mr. EVERARD: Does the right hon. Gentleman think the people of Scotland are more interested in the building of the houses or the cost of the foundations?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

ACCIDENTS.

Mr. G. HIRST: 13.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of non-fatal and fatal accidents in the mines of Great Britain for the years 1924 and 1925?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): In 1924, 1,218 persons were killed and 197,111 disabled for more than three days at all mines in Great Britain. In 1925, 1,158 persons were killed. The precise number of non-fatal accidents in 1925 is not yet available, but it will probably prove to be about 15,000 less than in the previous year. These figures do not necessarily mean that the accident rate has been reduced as the volume of unemployment has to be taken into account.

FATAL ACCIDENT, OLD HEMMINGFIELD COLLIERY.

Mr. HIRST: 14.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has made further inquiries into the cause of the accident at the Old Hemmingfield Colliery, where a life was lost through the breaking of a winding rope on 10th March; and, if so, what action he intends to take in the matter?

Colonel LANE FOX: The owners of this pumping station have decided to dispense with the services of the manager who was in responsible charge at the time of the accident; and, at my request, they have willingly agreed that, despite the doubt whether in law the Coal Mines Act applies to their pumping stations, it shall be observed at all these stations, in so far as its provisions are applicable.

Mr. HIRST: Is there any record at this colliery as to when the rope that broke had been examined?

Colonel LANE FOX: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is there any doubt as to whether the Mines Act did apply?

Colonel LANE FOX: It is doubtful, but the coroner at the inquest after the accident definitely directed that this accident did not come under the Act.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that steps are being taken to remove any doubt so that there can be no repetition of a similar disaster?

Mr. SEXTON: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the device that is being pursued to prevent accidents in winding?

Colonel LANE FOX: I do not think the hon. Member quite appreciates the point. I do not think that the device that he refers to applies to this accident. In reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) I may say that his point is certainly being considered. This was a very exceptional case.

Mr. HIRST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is eight and a-half years since this rope was put in?

Colonel LANE FOX: Yes, Sir. That is the reason I have taken the action I have taken.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Was the manager who has got the sack at the mine when the rope was put in eight and a-half years ago?

Colonel LANE FOX: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Has the Secretary for Mines satisfied himself that all the ropes by which the colliers ascend from or descend into the mines are being thoroughly inspected, just as satisfactorily as if Cabinet Ministers were ascending and descending the mines, because the colliers are "men for a' that" just as much as Cabinet Ministers?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

TOLL-GATES AND BRIDGES.

Mr. PENNY: 15.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will convene a meet-
ing of local authorities from all areas in which toll-gates and toll-bridges are situated to discuss the desirability of freeing them, in view of the burden of the charges, especially in agricultural districts; and will he further consider, in view of the fact that these toll-charges are more a national than a local problem, whether greater financial assistance can be granted to local authorities from the Road Fund for this object, in order to place England in a similar position to Scotland, where tolls on roads and bridges were abolished as far back as 1878?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I would remind my hon. Friend that in September, 1925, I issued a Circular to all local authorities calling attention to the provisions of the Roads Improvement Act, 1925, regarding toll-roads and bridges. I have reason to know that in many districts the matter is engaging the close attention of the local authorities, with whom the initiative must rest. In these circumstances, I do not consider that the suggested conference would serve any useful purpose. With regard to financial assistance from the Road Fund, no decision has yet been reached as to the amount of money to be made available for the purpose during the present year, or the terms upon which aid can be given.

Mr. PENNY: Is it the understood policy that Scotland shall always be placed before England?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not think that arises on this question.

Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any appreciable move on behalf of the local authorities in this direction since 1925, or whether, on the other hand, the local authorities are trusting to the Ministry of Transport to call them together with a view to co-ordination and to get a move on?

Colonel ASHLEY: I did send out Circulars, but I am sorry to say that a poor response has come in. The initiative must rest, under conditions and under present legislation, with the local authorities.

Mr. TAYLOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that before this problem can be satisfactorily handled he will have to seek some compulsory power to make
the people owning the toll gates part with them at a reasonable price? Is not that the reason why the local authorities are not moving?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot put a supplementary on every question.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The latter part of the original question, Mr. Speaker, you will notice refers to Scotland. You will remember that on the last day the House sat before Easter I put a question to the Minister, and I want to know what action has been taken in regard to the dangerous cross-road which I mentioned then.

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.

UNSPLINTERABLE GLASS.

Colonel DAY: 16.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the number of accidents lately to public service vehicles in which passengers have been injured by splintered glass; and will he consider the advisability of enforcing the fitting of non-splinter-able glass in all passenger-carrying vehicles in the future?

Colonel ASHLEY: With regard to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question. I have no information. With regard to the second part, I am anxious to encourage the use of some form of un-splinter-able glass on public service vehicles, but I am advised that, for reasons of cost, it would not, for the present, be practicable to make its use compulsory.

Oral Answers to Questions —  NEWSPAPERS (INTER-IMPERIAL POSTAL CHARGES).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 17.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Union of South Africa allows exchange copies of newspapers published in that Dominion, and destined for other newspaper offices within the Empire, to be sent free of postal charges: and whether he will consider an extension of this measure, framed for the purpose of giving more space to inter-imperial news. being put into practice by his Department in this country?

The POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I was not aware of the arrangement to which my hon. Friend refers; but in view of the fact that the postage rates upon newspapers sent to destinations overseas are already low and unremunerative, I do not feel justified in granting free postage as suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — CREDIT INSURANCE COMMITTEE (REPORT).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 18.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has considered the Report of the Credit Insurance Committee; and, if so, what action he proposes to take to give effect to the Committee's recommendations?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am giving most careful consideration to the valuable Report which has been furnished by the Credit Insurance Committee, and hope soon to be able to make an announcement on the subject.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: Is not this a case of another Government subsidy?

Mr. SAMUEL: On no account, so far as I can see.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

INDENTURED LABOURERS.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the indentured labourers about to be brought to Kenya will, on the expiry of their contracts, be able to get land to cultivate in Kenya with security of tenure?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I have not yet received from the Government of Kenya information as to the conditions proposed for the importation of labour.

Mr. SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will have the information?

Mr. AMERY: No. The information has not yet arrived.

RAILWAYS.

Mr. SMITH: 20.
also asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will
say of the railways now under construction or approved in Kenya how many miles pass through native reserves, land alienated to Europeans, game reserves, and other Crown lands, respectively?

Mr. AMERY: The approximate figures are: native reserves, 134 miles; land alienated to non-natives (mainly Europeans), 95 miles. No land in the other two categories appears to be concerned.

Mr. SMITH: 21.
further asked the Secretary of State if he will say of the existing railways in Kenya, how many miles pass through native reserves, land alienated to Europeans, game reserves, and other Crown lands, respectively?

Mr. AMERY: The following figures for the distances in question amount in the aggregate to more than the total mileage of existing railways in Kenya, as in many cases the railway is the boundary between lands of different classes: Native reserves, 272 miles; land alienated to non-natives (mainly Europeans), 683 miles; game reserve, 31 miles; other Crown land, 223 miles The figures are approximate only, but the main source of error is likely to be due to the fact that lands classed as "other Crown lands" may by now have been definitely assigned to natives.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERMANENT COURT OF INTER NATIONAL JUSTICE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Government, in coming to the decision not to sign the optional clause of the Statute of the Permanent Court, consulted the Dominions, and if so, what views were expressed by them on the subject; and whether it is proposed that this should be one of the matters discussed at the Imperial Conference in October?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir; the views of His Majesty's Government on this point were placed before the Dominions. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the correspondence with the Dominions on the subject of the Geneva Protocol (Cmd. 2458), and to page 3 of the statement made to the Council of the League of Nations by the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs an the same subject (Cmd. 2368). The suggestion contained in the last part of the question will be borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — RECLAMATION SCHEME, BOMBAY.

Mr. LANSBURY: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will inform the House the total amount it is expected will be expended on the Bombay reclamation scheme; the total amount of the contracts at present placed for this work, together with the names of the contractors who are carrying out the work, and the value of each contract; and can he tell the House the reasons which led the Governor of Bombay to override the decision of the Legislative Council not to proceed with the scheme, and by the exercise of his powers as Governor compel the people of Bombay to finance a scheme the elected authority considered inadvisable?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The Sub-Committee of the Advisory Committee appointed by the Government of Bombay thought it safe to assume that if Blocks 1, 2 and 8 are carried to completion, as is proposed, the net expenditure on the scheme, after allowing for receipts, will be something under £2,675,000. The estimates on which this opinion was based are under examination by a committee of engineers. The work is being carried out by the Development Department of the Government of Bombay, and I have not the information asked for by the hon. Member as to contracts placed by that Department. I know of no resolution by the Legislative Council against proceeding with the scheme.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the Noble Lord get the information as to who are the contractors carrying out this work, and will he inquire about these Regulations?

Earl WINTERTON: I can answer the second point at once. What the hon. Member has in mind was a resolution, moved in the Legislative Council but defeated, by the Legislative Council. In regard to the first point, I regret that I did not make it clear in my answer that this work is being carried out by the Development Department of the Government. As regards any sub-con-
tracts given by the Department, I have no exact information, but I will endeavour to get it.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (RAILWAY POLICE FORCE).

Colonel DAY: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give the size of the establishment of the Railway Police Force set up by the Treaty Powers in China, and state the nationality and numbers of the foreign officers in charge of this police force?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The hon. Member is under some misapprehension. There is no Railway Police Force in China set up by the Treaty Powers.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUBSIDISED HOUSES.

Colonel DAY: 26.
asked the Minister of Health whether numbers of subsidy houses in various districts are remaining unoccupied with a view to their sale by speculative builders; and, in view of the housing needs of the country, will he consider the advisability of withdrawing the subsidy in respect of such houses not occupied within a certain time after Completion?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend has no doubt that from time to time there are a certain number of houses standing unoccupied pending sale, but he does not think that there is ground for such general action as the hon. and gallant Member contemplates.

Oral Answers to Questions — OPTICAL PRACTITIONERS (REGISTRATION).

Mr. KELLY: 27.
asked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take to meet the views expressed by the recent deputation from the joint council of qualified opticians with regard to the practice of sight testing; and if he will state the attitude of the Government with regard to the proposed Bill for the registration of optical practitioners?

Sir K. WOOD: For reasons explained to the deputation referred to by the
hon. Member my right hon. Friend does not propose to take any action in the matter and the Government are not prepared to grant any facilities for the passage of the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — NECESSITOUS AREAS COMMITTEE (REPORT).

Mr. PRESTON: 28.
asked the Prime Minister if he can now state when the Report of the Departmental Committee on necessitous areas will be available?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I anticipate that the Report will shortly be considered by the Government, and publication will be made as early as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

Mr. DIXEY: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to set up a committee of all parties to consider the question of unemployment?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I doubt whether any practicable purpose would be served by the adoption of this suggestion. I explained my reasons at some length in a reply on 7th July last to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

Mr. FINBURGH: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to establish any committee to deal with this question in any way?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that point is dealt with in the answer to which I have referred.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since last July the unemployment figures have remained extremely heavy, and, as his Government have failed to reduce them substantially, will he take other persons into consultation?

The PRIME MINISTER: They are still heavy, but I think they are considerably better

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. WESTWOOD: 30.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that
old age pensions committees, whilst disallowing old age pensions under the 1908 to 1919 Old Age Pensions Acts, do not inform applicants who are insured under the National Health Insurance Acts of their rights under the 1925 Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act; and will he give instructions that such information shall be given to all such applicants whose claims are disallowed between now and next July?

Sir K. WOOD: I have been asked to reply. At the end of last month a revised form of claim for old age pension, specially designed to meet the situation arising under the Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, was substituted for the form previously in use, and under the new procedure all claims for old age pensions are forwarded to the Ministry of Health in the first instance for examination with reference to title under that Act. A revised explanatory leaflet, together with the new form of claim, can be obtained at any post office.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to give temporary instructions to Old Age Pensions Committees to advise pensioners that they have certain rights under the new Act?

Sir K. WOOD: There is no reason to think that such action is necessary. If the hon. Member has any Committee in mind and will send me particulars, I will look into the matter.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Is it not the case that Old Age Pensions Committees have been turning down claims and have not informed applicants that they have these rights?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. And if the hon. Member will send me particulars of any such cases I will have them investigated.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that pensioners have found great difficulty in getting their claims recognised; and does it not appear to be the business of the pension officers to discourage claims rather than encourage them?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. And I am not aware that any great difficulty has been experienced in getting claims recognised.

Oral Answers to Questions — REPARATION PAYMENTS.

Sir F. WISE: 31.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of reparations received by this country and the Dominions since the 1st January?

Mr. McNEILL: The total amount paid by the Agent-General for Reparation Payments to or for the account of the British Empire from 1st January to 31st March, 1926, was 54,666,000 gold marks (£2,733,300). Out of this amount, approximately £1,715,000 represents the United Kingdom's share of reparation, and approximately £258,000 the share of the other parts of the British Empire, the balance being receipts on account of the Army of Occupation and Belgian War Debt.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA (DEVELOPMENT LOAN).

Sir F. WISE: 32.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any part of the East African Loan will be offered in East Africa?

Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir. The loan will be issued in London in the usual way.

Sir F. WISE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the policy of offering the loan to the East African Colonies?

Mr. McNEILL: It has been considered.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is there any chance of Scotland getting part of this loan, so that we may buy some of the land, and put people who are unemployed on it?

Oral Answers to Questions — INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT (STAFF).

Mr. HANNON: 34.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what increase in staff in the Inland Revenue Department has been necessitated since the introduction of the last Finance Act; and what is the approximate annual cost of such additional staff?

Mr. McNEILL: Between the 1st July, 1925, the date of the commencement of the Finance Act, 1925, and the 1st April, 1926, the staff of the Inland Revenue has increased by 117 persons, namely, from 19,720 to 19,837. The approximate annual cost of such additional staff is £17,600.

Mr. HARRIS: Does that include a number of additional Customs officers?

Mr. McNEILL: The hon. Member is apparently not aware that the Inland Revenue and the Customs are separate Departments.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ (FRONTIER RAID).

lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information about the reported fighting in Iraq; what forces were engaged; and whether there were any casualties?

Mr. AMERY: A party of Syrian tribesmen crossed the frontier between Syria and Iraq on the 2nd April and attacked the tribesmen on the Iraq side. A section of armoured cars assisted the latter to repel the raiders and action was subsequently taken by aircraft. As a result the raiders withdrew across the frontier into Syrian territory; it is believed that they lost about 30 killed. The Iraqi tribesmen lost one killed and two wounded. No British casualties have been reported.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do I understand that these tribesmen came from territory under French control, and, if so, are we making any representations to the French authorities in Syria to prevent these raids?

Mr. AMERY: The matter was purely a local raid between frontier tribes. No doubt the attention of the French Government has been drawn to the matter.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that the same Government which protests against the use of aeroplanes elsewhere justifies the use of air force in Iraq?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC PROCESSIONS (POLICE ACTION).

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department by whose instructions the police were authorised to attempt to break up the demonstration marching from Wandsworth Prison on Sunday evening last at Battersea Rise; can be inform the House how many persons were injured, including members of the police
force, by the constabulary on that occasion; is he aware that many persons who witnessed the disturbance in Hyde Park on Tuesday, 30th March, were of opinion that that disturbance was caused by the provocative behaviour of the police; and will he inform the police authorities that it is not illegal for persons taking part in demonstrations to march back to their homes together when the demonstration is over?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks): The police acted under their general authority to control the traffic, and on this occasion did so with great care and success until near Battersea Rise, when part of the procession became disorderly and spread across the road blocking the general traffic, which was fairly heavy at the time. The police then tried to reduce the procession to order, when the crowd began to shout "Up the rebels," "Come on, Reds," etc. No one was injured except one constable. In reply to the last part of the question, persons who desire to march through the streets of London must do so in an orderly manner.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the same treatment to be meted out to the workers marching through the streets, and the same liberty given them, as is given to medical students, university students, and others who parade the West End? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two women were knocked down in that scrimmage on Sunday, that two men were knocked down, that there was no blocking of the traffic, that the whole of the disturbance took place on the other side of Battersea Rise, where there was no traffic blocking whatever taking place, and that the police authorities—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order ! "] Very well, I will ask another question later.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is a little difficult to answer all those questions. I am not aware of any other injuries, and no injuries were reported to the police other than that to the one constable. With regard to the question of differentiation between medical students and others, there is no differentiation at all. The police take the same measures in regard to all processions.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these two women
were removed from the ground, from the roadway, having been knocked down, and is he aware that the police authorities put a cordon of police into the procession to march with it, and that that caused considerable disorder and disgust amongst the processionists?

Mr. J. JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman made special arrangements for the demonstration taking place next Saturday, when a lady who calls herself "General" Drummond is going to organise a demonstration against the miners, and will he see that they get the same kind of treatment as working-class processions get when they take advantage of the opportunity?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, they will get exactly the same kind of treatment and will have to obey the same rules.

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to give notice that, either to-night or at the most convenient opportunity, I shall call attention to the facts connected with this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEETINGS (POLICE REPORTS).

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary what instructions as to reporting speeches are given to police reporters attached to the special Department in dealing with speeches at Communist, Labour and other meetings; are they instructed to take verbatim reports, or only such portions of speeches which, in the opinion of the person reporting, are considered to be illegal or seditious?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Metropolitan Police officers engaged on such duties are told to exercise their discretion in this matter. Speeches are not reported verbatim without necessity.

Mr. LANSBURY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it quite fair to leave the reporting of speeches to a man whose instructions are to take out only certain portions of what persons may say, and is that conducive to their getting a fair trial if the Attorney-General prosecutes them?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is not the instruction given to the police. The police are certainly not told to pick out
any special remarks. I will say to the hon. Member, for his own satisfaction, that I have special reports of his speeches.

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to give the right hon. Gentleman notice that I intend to raise this matter also at a convenient opportunity—not about the verbatim reporting of my own speeches.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Are the reporters who are sent to these meetings expert in the law with regard to sedition, and are they competent to judge whether an utterance is seditious or otherwise?

Mr. SPEAKER: That depends on the report.

Oral Answers to Questions — EVIOTION ORDERS, ST. HELENS.

Mr. SEXTON: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether he was aware that the tenants of 16 houses, the property of his Department, occupied by 103 persons in St. Helens, have been notified by the local county court officials that an Order of the Court secured by his Department for possession, will be executed on Thursday next by forcible eviction, and themselves and their household goods thrown on the streets, there being nowhere else for them to go owing to the doubly congested nature of the neighbourhood; and whether, in view of the fact that the local authorities, in order to meet the circumstances of the case, have so expedited house-building as to guarantee to provide full accommodation for these people in six weeks, he will take the necessary immediate steps to prevent the evictions pending the expiration of that period?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): Since the eviction orders were obtained, I have heard from the Town Clerk of St. Helens, offering four houses immediately and 12 more in six or eight weeks, for the accommodation of the people referred to in the question. I have therefore issued instructions for the suspension of the eviction from Thursday to Monday next, and an application to the Court will be made to-morrow to extend the time for the execution of the warrant, so that the present occupants may have an opportunity of going in to the new houses as they become ready.

Oral Answers to Questions — BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to give notice that, on Wednesday, 5th May, I shall call attention to the Powers and Constitution of the House of Lords, and move a Resolution.

FOREIGN CONSULATES.

Mr. HANNON: I beg to give notice that, on Wednesday, 5th May, I shall call attention to foreign Consulates and Commercial Secretariats, and move a Resolution.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (ECONOMY).

Sir FRANCIS WATSON: I beg to give notice that, on Wednesday, 5th May, I shall call attention to the economic necessity for the reduction of the staffs in various Government Departments, and move a Resolution.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND DRAINAGE BILL [Lords],

Read the First time; to be read a Second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 82.]

Orders of the Day — ECONOMY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for reducing in respect of certain services the charges on public funds and for increasing, by means of the payment into the Exchequer of certain sums and otherwise, the funds available for meeting such charges, and to amend accordingly the Law relating to National Health Insurance and certain other matters and for purposes related or incidental thereto, it is expedient to amend Section fifty-nine of the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, by repealing the words ' other than additional benefits ' in paragraph (e) of Sub-section (1) thereof and to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such additional sums as may be required for the purpose of defraying the proper proportion of the costs of any additional benefits to which men of the forces may under the said Act become entitled out of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Insurance Fund."—(King's Recommendation signified.) — [Mr. Ronald McNeill.]

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Is there to be no explanation of this very important Resolution? We are all waiting to hear.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The Resolution has one effect and one only, namely, that it enables the members of the fighting forces in future to obtain additional benefits beyond the benefits which are provided under the existing National Health Insurance Act, and it calls upon the Slate to contribute one-seventh of the cost of those benefits, and consequently throws a liability upon the Exchequer and necessitates this Resolution. The estimated cost falling upon the State of that addition to the benefits is £3,000 per annum. Perhaps I had better explain briefly what are the existing provisions of the National Health Insurance Act with regard to serving soldiers, sailors and airmen. Under the Act the soldier—I take the soldier as an example, but the same arrangements apply to the airman and
the sailor—pays nothing to the National Insurance Fund so long as he is in the Service, but the Department makes a contribution to the National Insurance Fund which enables the soldier, while he is in the Army, to receive maternity benefit, but no other benefit, because the other benefits are already provided by the terms of his service. Further, in the contribution made by the Department, there is a sufficient sum to enable that soldier, when he leaves the Service, to join an approved society, if his health permits him to do so, as a fully paid-up member. He can, from the moment of his re-entry into civil life, receive exactly the same benefits as he would have received had he been a member of an approved society during the time he was in the Army.
There is another class, however, to whom that arrangement does not apply. There is the man whose health has been impaired during service and whom no society will accept as a member, and for that man there is the Navy, Army and Air Force Insurance Fund, set up under the Act of 1911 and consolidated under the Act of 1924. A soldier in impaired health can remain a member of that fund, and I think about 23,300 are now members of it. Under the Act, however, they are only entitled to standard benefits and not to any additional benefits such as they would have received as members of approved societies. The alteration we are now making will give the Navy. Army and Air Force Insurance Fund the right to pay, not merely standard benefit, but also additional benefits equal to the average benefits payable by approved societies. In order to do so a fund is created which I shall have to explain on the next Resolution. There will be an annual charge. The State will have to make a contribution of one-seventh to the benefits that will be payable, and consequently, a liability of about £3,000 a year will be thrown upon the State. This Resolution is required in order to permit that to be done.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee who determines the additional benefits, and what they are?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is a question which I shall be very glad to answer, but it would be more appro-
priate to deal with it on Clause 5 of the Economy Bill relating to that matter [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]

Mr. THOMAS: In Clause 5 of the Economy Bill you are robbing the Fund, but I want the right hon. Gentleman to explain these additional benefits and to state what they are, under the Resolution with which we are now dealing. Clause 5 takes away money which was for additional benefits.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman, under the cloak of a question, makes a serious accusation which he has no right to make, and suggests that we are robbing the Fund—

The CHAIRMAN: I have given full attention to this Resolution as well as to the Resolution which will follow in Committee of Ways and Means, and I think it will be for the convenience of Members to discuss the two subjects together now. I am, of course, in the hands of the Committee in this matter, but I think it would be inconvenient if I had to rule very strictly throughout a discussion confined to one of the Resolutions. I, therefore, suggest that both might be discussed now without prejudice to any Division which may take place.

Mr. THOMAS: I think the Committee appreciate your difficulty, Sir, and your genuine attempt to get over it; incidentally, that is the answer to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that I am using a cloak under which to make a charge. I think hon. Members would be wise to accept the suggestion of the Chair without any prejudice to a Division afterwards.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I quite agree that it is impossible to discuss this subject piecemeal and I only intervened originally because I desired to get a general exposition from the Secretary of State for War of what the actual proposal was, so that the Committee might be in full possession of the facts. If I may respectfully say so, I think the Chairman's suggestion is admirable and it would answer the purposes of debate very much better if we were prepared to discuss both subjects upon the one Resolution and under the usual conditions.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If that be the desire of the Committee, I
shall be very glad indeed to deal with the other question and, incidentally, to answer the charge of robbery which was quite unjustly made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). I have already explained what the particular Fund is, and I had better add to that explanation, a statement of the financial arrangements which will maintain that Fund in solvency and render it able to pay the additional benefits which are intended. If hon. Members have read the Report of the Government Actuary which has been circulated with the Bill, they will see that there was a surplus as at 31st December, 1924, of £1,424,000 on the Army, Navy and Air Force Insurance Fund, after providing for all liabilities for ordinary benefits, but not for additional benefits. It is there stated that the value of that money is now about £1,500,000, because interest has been added since. It is proposed to transfer, not £1,500,000 but £1,100,000 of that surplus, or, in other words, to leave in that Fund £400,000, and the Government Actuary has advised us that the £400,000 would be sufficient to enable the Fund to bear additional benefits to the average of those which are paid by the approved societies.

Sir JOHN SIMON: In which paragraph of the Report does the Actuary say so?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I thought it was in the Report, but if it is not, the right hon. and learned Gentleman can take it from me that I have been advised by the Government Actuary that £400,000 is sufficient for the purposes I have stated. I thought, however, it was actually set out in the Report.

Sir J. SIMON: It may be. Is it in paragraph 17?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: By implication it is in paragraph 17—in fact, I think hon. Members will find there a direct statement which substantiates what I have said. I think they will find it stated that, after assigning a sum of £400,000 to the provision of additional benefits, the balance of the surplus is £1,100,000 and that this it is proposed to carry forward to the Exchequer. I can relieve the mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the subject, in any case, because, supposing by any chance a miscalculation has been made, the solvency of the Fund
is guaranteed by the Department and always has been so guaranteed. Under the 1911 Act the contribution to be made by the Government Department in respect of certain men is to be a sum sufficient to keep the Fund solvent and this provision has been repeated in the Act of 1924. Section 59 (B) of that Act says:
The weekly contributions to be made by the Admiralty, Army Council, or Air Council in respect of men of the forces shall be such as may from time to time be required to keep the Fund solvent.
It is an unconditional guarantee by the Government Departments to make weekly contributions sufficient to keep the Fund solvent. Therefore, the whole of the story that is embodied in these two Resolutions is this, that whatever hon. Members opposite may say about other parts of the Economy Bill, this part of the Economy Bill gives a greater benefit to the serving soldiers, sailors and airmen than they had before. It gives them a right, not merely to ordinary benefits, but to additional benefits equal to the average of the friendly society benefits.

Mr. THOMAS: The object of this Resolution is to give the soldier the same advantages as the civilian for additional benefits. If that be so, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the additional benefits contemplated are the benefits now given by the best or any approved societies, whether they are also the benefits foreshadowed in the Commission's Report, and, if the latter, whether the £1,100,000 that he is taking away is not money that was contemplated as a surplus for additional benefits?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No. Let me answer the last part of the question first. because it deals with figures and is rather more difficult to follow. The right hon. Gentleman says, "There is a surplus of £1,100,000; was not that intended to be a fund out of which further benefits could be obtainable by the soldier?" No, it was not: and it never was, because under the Act the benefits that the soldier remaining on this Fund was to get were limited to ordinary benefits. There was a specific provision that he should not get additional benefits of any sort at all, and the reason for that was that the Departments were guarantee-
ing the Fund. They were not guaranteeing more than ordinary benefits; they were not guaranteeing additional benefits. The ordinary benefits are payable to-day, but what I want to get for the soldier and sailor is something equal to the average of the benefits paid by the approved societies. If they are in good health when they leave the Service, they go to an approved society; if they are in bad health, I do not think the State ought to give them less because their health is bad in the service of the State than they would have got if their health had not been bad in the service of the State, and, consequently, they are going to have benefits equal to the average benefits paid by the approved societies.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether they were specified. No, they are not. They are going to be specified in the regulations which will be made under the Act. Obviously, you cannot specify them in advance. Far from there being any robbery of £1,100,000, that is a pure surplus. It is not available for use for additional or any other benefits. It is there, and if it were not transferred under the Economy Bill, the soldiers would not get it. What would happen to it would be this, that the Departments, instead of contributing 3½d. a week for those who were insured in their service, would make a lower contribution, and gradually the £1,100,000 would be absorbed by lower contributions. None of the serving soldiers, sailors, or airmen would get it at all. All that would happen would be that in future lower contributions would be paid, and it would be gradually absorbed over a series of years. Instead of doing that, we are taking every precaution that the Fund shall be solvent. On our actuary's advice, we are widening the benefits to be given, and transferring the surplus to the Exchequer, which badly needs it, but not as a robbery, because the guarantee of the Government of the solvency of the Fund still remains.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I feel sure the Committee will agree when I say that the right hon. Gentleman has not given an adequate explanation of these two Motions. In fact, he has made the most amazing statement I have ever heard from that Box. He has told the Committee to-day that the Government, while taking ½1,100,000 out of this Fund, are not robbing the Fund at all. If I under-
stand English vocabulary, that is simply robbing and nothing else. It cannot be anything else.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Whom does it rob?

Mr. DAVIES: You are robbing the Fund and the soldiers and sailors who contribute to it. The points I desire to put to the right hon. Gentleman are these: There is a series of Regulations governing this Fund, and one of them refers to the setting up of an advisory committee. I will read the Regulation, so that the right hon. Gentleman might know exactly what I am aiming at. It declares that,
For the purpose of advising the Minister as to the administration of benefits payable out of the Fund, and as to the admission to benefit of seamen, soldiers, and airmen, there shall he constituted an Advisory Committee.
As far as I understand Regulation 20, the Minister is supposed to ask the advice of that Committee before tampering in any way whatsoever with the Fund. I want to know, in the first place, whether this committee has been set up, and, if so, what is the personnel of the committee, and what is the advice given by the committee to the Minister in respect of this Fund.
I am astonished at the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman. He has tried to make the Committee believe that the soldiers, sailors, and airmen under this new scheme are going to get benefits equal to the average additional benefits, I took him to say, payable by the approved societies. Several of the approved societies, on the second valuation, will be able to pay additional benefits covering five out of the 14 comprising the Schedule. Other approved societies will be absolutely in deficiency. I take it from the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman that what is intended to be done under this scheme is to say: "Deficiencies and surpluses of approved societies will be pooled, and we will strike an average, and then base the additional benefits to be paid from this fund on the average payable by approved societies."
The other question I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this: The contributions to this Fund for the last year for which figures are available, are
as follow: The gross contributions are £35,738, but the total benefits payable from the Fund, according to the last balance-sheet, amounted to £49,000. That, in effect, shows that the Fund disclosed a loss of about £14,000 in one year. If the Fund shows £14,000 lass in one year, and the Government are taking in addition £1,100,000 from the Fund, how is the Fund then going to pay additional benefits on the lines suggested by the right hon. Gentleman? The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman really will not do. He has not told us how many members there are in this Fund. Am I right in stating that this Fund has to provide ultimately for 33,000 men? Am I right also in assuming that when the £1,100,000 is taken from the Fund, there will be £400,000 only left available for additional benefits for these men?
I take it that is the case. Now let us see where we stand. The right hon. Gentleman states, and the Regulation proves in part what he says in this connection, that this Fund does not belong now to the men who served in the last War. This Fund deals exclusively, as I understand, with men of the Regular forces. You must, therefore, divide the men who served in the Army during the last War from the men who are now serving in the Regular forces. There are 33,000 men, I understand, in this Fund. Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to this question? I understood him to say that the Government make themselves responsible for any insolvency which may occur in this Fund. Do I understand that the Fund is going to be treated as if it were an approved society? If so, is it going to be dealt with under one of the Clauses included in the Economy Bill, where, upon the certificate of an actuary submitted to the Ministry of Health and the Treasury, the Government will make good any deficiency in connection with the Fund?
Let me put another question appertaining to that point. What additional benefits is it proposed to pay from this Fund? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health knows a great deal about the number of additional benefits which are contained in the Schedule of the Act of 1911. He knows, too, that Approved Societies, in the main, have adopted not more than three of these additional benefits—dental treatment and appliances, optical treatment
and appliances, and surgical appliances. A few approved societies have adopted convalescent homes; others pay contributions to hospitals, voluntary and otherwise. Will those 33,000 men, or that number of them who are dischaged from the Army, automatically come on to the Fund for additional benefits both in cash and in kind, just as if they were members of Approved Societies? The right hon. Gentleman surely ought to have read the Report of the Royal Commission on this subject before he spoke.
I am very glad that it is possible by your ruling, Mr. Hope, to discuss Resolutions 1 and 2 upon this fundamental issue. This question we are discussing to-day is a very important one, indeed, especially to the men who are discharged from the Forces suffering from disease. They are compelled, in fact, if they are well in health, to return to the Approved Society of which they were members before they joined the Forces, but there are hundreds upon hundreds of men discharged from His Majesty's Forces suffering from consumption, and the Government Department declare that the disease from which they are suffering is not attributable to their service with the Regular Forces. Does this proposal of the Government mean that additional benefits in kind which may be paid under this scheme are going to be extended to cover the cases of men suffering from consumption, or are they going to be confined purely and simply to dental, optical and surgical appliances, and so forth?
Let us now see what the Royal Commission say upon the subject. This is their recommendation; but this Government have a habit of taking no notice of recommendations just now. They take no heed at all of the Report of their own Commission. The Royal Commission was composed of persons appointed by the Government some time ago, men and women well versed in National Health Insurance. They know the administration of the scheme from top to bottom, and this is what they say:
That members of the Navy, Army and Air Force Insurance Fund who transfer to an Approved Society on their discharge from the Forces should for the purpose of title to additional benefits, be treated as though they had been members of the
Society from the date of their joining the Forces, and that to enable this to be done the transfer values payable out of the Navy, Army and Air Force Insurance Fund in respect of such men should be augmented by the estimated share of surplus earned during their period of service.
Does the right hon. Gentleman intend that part of the £400,000, to which he has referred is to be handed over to the approved societies who accept men who come out of the Army and who are compelled by Regulations to join an approved society; or is he keeping the whole of the £400,000 to pay additional benefits to men who form this new approved society called the Navy, Army and Air Force Insurance Fund Society? The Commission go further and say:
That, apart from the modifications to which we have referred, no change should be made with regard to the insurance of men serving in the Forces of the Crown.
That is definite enough. The Commission request the Government not to interfere in any way whatsoever with this Fund, and the Commission knew quite well how the Fund was established. They knew the amount of contributions paid by the Government and the men towards the Fund. They knew the exact weekly contributions paid by the men and the Government; and, still, after careful consideration, they came to the conclusion that the Fund should not be disturbed. Yet to-day the Government come forward with a Resolution saying that they propose taking away £1,100,000; and, in order to delude these 33,000 men, they turn round, after stealing £1,100,000 from them, and say, "We are not going to take anything from you; in fact, we are going to give you additional benefits just as if you were members of an approved society." I have never heard anything so hypocritical before. I wish the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health was in his place. He has been making excuses for the Government in respect of this Economy Bill and has recently issued an edict from the Ministry of Health; and this is what he says:
A disposable surplus of £9,000,000 is available as a result of the first valuation of Approved Societies, and the still larger disposable surplus "—

The CHAIRMAN: How can the hon. Gentleman connect this with an argument relating to the Army and Navy Fund?

Mr. DAVIES: I was only using that as an illustration because the Government propose by these two Resolutions to connect the additional benefits they propose to pay under this Fund with the additional benefits payable by approved societies. Now, having used it only as an argument, I will refer to another point I desire to make. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has taken into account the position of men who were serving in the Great War, and do not in fact fall within the scope of this Fund. I am wondering whether the Government have really taken heed of that point, as there are thousands upon thousands of men who served in the last War, and in respect of whom contributions were paid to this Fund. Many are now thrown on the funds of approved societies. They are receiving nothing at all from Approved Societies, except one shilling a week by way of disablement benefit, and I should have thought, instead of taking £1,100,000 in this way, in order to relieve the taxpayer of his Income Tax, that the Government, which talked so glibly during the War about the rights of men serving His Majesty and all the rest of it, could give that money in order to help these poor fellows, who get so little through approved societies, and so fulfil the glorious promises made during the War.
4.0 P.M.
I want to press the two main questions I have put to the right hon. Gentleman. Have the Government yet appointed the Advisory Committee according to Regulation 20? Can he say, yes or now now? It will help me if he can. I would not be surprised if the Advisory Committee had not been appointed at all. As a matter of fact, even when this Government does appoint a consultative council or advisory committee in this connection, they never take their advice; they just do what they like. That was their attitude with regard to the Consultative Council of the Ministry of Health. They took no account at all of the decisions of that Consultative Council. I take it for granted, as the right hon. Gentleman does not reply, that the Committee has never been appointed. I understand, according to Regulation No. 20, issued in 1924, some representatives on this Advisory Committee were to come from the men themselves in respect of whom contributions are paid, and, after all, these 33,000
men who are serving in the Forces are the people most concerned in this question. They are the people who suffer from the diminution in benefits as a consequence of the proposals of the Government.
I cannot understand how the right hon. Gentleman comes to argue that these men will not suffer in the least in spite of the fact that over £1,000,000 is taken from their funds. I will try and explain to him what the Government are doing. It is quite true that these men will not suffer any reduction in benefit now, but, if the £1,100,000 remained in the Fund over a period of three or four years, they would then be entitled to benefits which they will not receive if the £1,100,000 is taken away, and we on this side of the House protest against this method of dealing with the accounts of the National Insurance Acts. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be more happy when he stands up at that Box again. I think the Government, or some members of the Government are absolutely sick of the activities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this connection. I felt, when the Minister of Health was speaking the other day on the Bill, and when the right hon. Gentleman was speaking this afternoon, that they were absolutely unhappy —I do not know whether this is Parliamentary language or not—in doing what I regard as the dirty work of the Chancellor of the Exchequer: because it is nothing more nor less than that. We on this side of the House propose telling the people of the country the whole truth of what is happening in this connection. If the Government will not be frank and will not declare that they are actually depriving these million people of this money—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member himself has just stated that there are only 33,000 of them.

Mr. DAVIES: But the 33,000 are surely related to the other millions. They are sons of some of the millions. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give the Committee this afternoon very much more details of the proposal of the Government than he has yet done. There are other points in this connection which we shall put later on to-night; and, whenever the Bill comes before the House again, we hope to pursue our opposition to it, because it is unfair and unjust, and it limits definitely the benefits that ought to
be paid and promised. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he knows as well as I do that, if you take £1,100,000 from this Fund, you will reduce the benefits of these men that otherwise they would be entitled to receive.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS indicated dissent.

Mr. DAVIES: Of course, you would. The same foolish argument has been used throughout in connection with the finances of this scheme. One right hon. Gentle man said the other day: "Of course, we are going to take £8,000,000 away from the funds, but we are not going to reduce your benefits." You are not going to reduce the current benefits, but what we protest against is that you are going to reduce the prospective benefits to which these people are entitled and which, in fact, they have been promised. We, on this side of the House, shall protest against the way in which the Government are handling this problem. They are taking away money to which the Treasury is not entitled. They are going to take £1,100,000 from serving soldiers in order to relieve the taxpayers; and, so far as we are concerned, we shall object at every stage to the way in which the Government are performing their ugly tasks.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has proposed two Resolutions, by one of which the Navy, Army, and Air Forces are to benefit to the extent, we are told, of £3,000 per annum, and by the other of which they are to be deprived of £1,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to draw a nice distinction between what he calls a "transfer" and what other people call "robbery." Why cannot he be honest about it? If he is taking this money away from the soldiers and sailors, why cannot he admit it? After all, they belong to a Service which understands the ordinary meaning of the English language, and they will not be in the least deceived by the refinements of expression used by the right hon. Gentleman. Where does this money, which the right hon. Gentleman is taking, come from? He says that it belongs to nobody. If it belongs to nobody, he is the last person who has a right to transfer it to the Exchequer. This money comes partly from the living and partly from the dead. It is the money, not only of
the living but of those who fell in the War, that he is robbing by these Resolutions. The Actuary's report says that this reserve, which he is plundering, has accrued in respect of men who were killed during the War or who died as the result of wounds received or diseases contracted during the War. That is the money that the right hon. Gentleman is taking. He represents a Government which expresses much solicitude for the Service and for ex-service men, and this is one of the methods by which he demonstrates the effectiveness of that solicitude. It is a cruel and a callous thing to choose this moment after the Great War, because the Exchequer is in need, to come down upon a helpless body of men who cannot go on strike as the miners can to defend their rights.
Under the original Act, this money was contributed by the sailors and soldiers themselves. They made a direct contribution under the original Act out of their own pay. It was stopped out of their own pay. Later on, for the purpose of facilitating the administration, the State paid the money directly instead of paying it to them in the form of their weekly emoluments. That is the history of the transaction, and, whichever way you put it, there can be no doubt whatever that this money which comes out of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Votes is the money of the sailors and soldiers and airmen. The right hon. Gentleman says that the money is useless where it is. It was destined to provide maternity benefits, and we cannot use it for any other purpose. Surely, it would have been perfectly simple, if the right hon. Gentleman's Government had cared for the sailors and soldiers, to have provided some other method of expenditure which would have redounded to their advantage. The Government have just reduced the pay of the sailors and soldiers. New entrants are getting a lower rate of pay than those serving under existing contracts. This is a double reduction of their pay, because the right hon. Gentleman is taking from them that to which they are entitled, and, in addition, he is taking away the means by which they keep their families alive.
The sailors and soldiers, as a whole, have never had any advantage from this fund. All they get is £2 when their wives have a child. That sum is paid
outright as the fee of tire midwife, or for something else. The sailors and soldiers have many needs which are generally recognised, and, instead of allowing them or their wives or widows to be thrown upon charity, this money could have been used to provide them, as in the case of foreign seamen, with a pension fund to improve their status and to facilitate their passage through life. There are a thousand and one things that the right hon. Gentleman could have done with this fund. He is just reducing the marriage allowance of naval ratings. Could he not have kept the marriage allowance at its present figure rather than take this money away for the benefit of the Exchequer? How is this benefit of £3,000 which comes under the first Resolution to be given to the sailors and soldiers? It is to be given to them at the expense of the approved societies. He is throwing these men on to the funds of the approved societies. There never was a more damnable piece of robbery, not only from the sailors and soldiers—

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman is now getting beyond the line.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is difficult to find relevant language in which to condemn the action of the right hon. Gentleman. It is useless for him to say that he is taking this £1,000,000 away for their own good. I remember when I at school that whenever the cane was administered to me I was always informed that it was for my own good. I used to be very sceptical about that at the time, but, however much I may have deserved the cane while at school, there is no justification whatever for taking this money away from the sailors, soldiers and airmen who helped us during the War and informing them gladly that it is done for their own good.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like to say a few words about this matter before we come to a decision. This is in a different position than even the transaction we discussed at some length before the Recess. That was discontinuing to the extent of £2,800,000 a grant which was annually voted by Parliament. We maintained that that was a breach of a pledge, but this is in
a different and a worse position than that transaction. This is taking away an accumulated fund which belongs as much to the people for whom it was designed as any investment belonging to any person in this Kingdom. It is taking away money which belongs to another as much as if you raided the reserve of a bank or the reserve money of a public company. The fact that it has been accumulated in pennies and three-halfpennies makes it worse and not better. If you set aside £150,000 out of the profits of the year to a reserve fund and you build up a great reserve to meet a rainy day for a company, anybody who came and proposed that it should be taken away would be called a robber. That is a word which we have been taught by hon. Gentlemen opposite whenever we have put up the Super-tax. It would be regarded as confiscation. What is the difference between £150,000 voted out of profitable transactions at the end of a year to a reserve and money which has been accumulated out of the pennies and three-halfpennies of sailors and soldiers who have been risking their lives for their country? This is worse. [Interruption.] There is an hon. Gentleman who says that it is a laughing matter. Let him say so in public. He laughs when one refers to the sacrifices of the soldiers and sailors. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] He certainly did.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I smiled at the right hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman thinks it is very amusing in me to use an argument which says that it is wrong to take away the reserves of a profitable company and to compare that with taking three halfpennies away which have been saved by soldiers and sailors. I say it is the same transaction and that it is infinitely worse. I will give him an argument from one of his own leaders, and I want him, if he will, to laugh at that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the Minister responsible for this transaction, and he is never here to defend it. I remember during the War there was a legend at the front that the soldiers never got anything but plum and apple jam, and that somebody at the base took away the strawberry jam. The gentleman who is intercepting the strawberry jam is not here, and he has left it to a War Office "dug-out"
to defend his action. Now I am to point out, not merely for the benefit of this hon. Gentleman who is so amused, but for the benefit of others, that the proposition laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that all this money is in the nature of an investment. This is what he said about it last year:
In the new Pensions Bill now before Parliament they had one method of multiplying the small property-holder, for, after all, insurance on the contributory system was a very direct and obvious form of thrift and saving.
That is the proposition. The three halfpennies is thrift and saving; it is the creation of a small property, and all the money which has been put in and accumulated to the extent of £1,100,000 is a property which has been saved by those soldiers and sailors, and no one has any right to rob them of their little property. The right hon. Gentleman says, "I am giving them £3,000 a year." £3,000 a year at 5 per cent, is £60,000. He is taking away £1,100,000 and he says: "It is perfectly true that I am taking away that sum of your savings, but I am giving you£60,000 until another Chancellor of the Exchequer comes again and takes it away. We are gentlemen robbers. We do leave at any rate a little behind." He may say that is not robbery. Would he mind explaining it in view of the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that these accumulated funds belong just as much to the contributor as any savings or any money which you have invested by your thrift in the bank? What is the difference between them?
That is why I thank this transaction is infinitely worse than any transaction which up to the present we have been criticising and condemning. Surely, as my hon. Friend who has just sat down has pointed out, this is hardly a time to do it. Before the War we owed a good deal to these gallant men, hut since then they have undertaken to defend the honour and safety of this country at the risk of their lives, and they had to face the greatest and most terrible war in history. They have had to face privations and perils, such as no sailors and soldiers in the history of any war have ever had continuously to face. During the Recess I was reading rather an interesting account in a. very brilliant book which has been issued about the fighting in Flanders, written by a soldier.
He says it was not so much the perils to life but it was the privations they endured, which were inconceivable. I come from reading that book to be asked to vote that £1,100,000 of the money which has been saved by those men out of their pennies and three halfpennies should be taken away—money that was accumulated in consequence of the fact that many of them have sacrificed their lives.
It is one of the most discreditable transactions in the history of any Government, and I do hope that the appeal will not be made in vain to many hon. Members and right hon. Members on the other side of the House. I cannot believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War really has his heart in this transaction. With his usual chivalry, he comes forward to defend it, but I do not believe that in his heart he approves of it. I am sure he thinks it is a mean transaction. It is a foolish one from every point of view. You are dealing with men who, by the very discipline of the Forces, cannot protest. Approved Societies can pass resolutions; they can hold great gatherings during the Easter Recess and protest and send in resolutions; they can go to meetings at East Ham and elsewhere, and protest very effectually, and they can write to Members of Parliament to protest. But the anon we are concerned with cannot do it, under pain of infringing the strict Army Regulations. I think you might leave them out. It is not worth doing. It is not as if the country were in great distress and needed the £1,100,000. It needs nothing more deeply than the loyalty of the gallant men who helped to save its honour, and to save the freedom and independence of the whole world. I beg the Government to reconsider the proposal. Even if they cannot meet us on other things, I ask them for their own honour and the honour of the House of Commons not to proceed with this discreditable transaction.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman has made a speech which makes me wonder whether he has any knowledge of the proposals of the Government Measure, or any recollection of what he himself put into the National Insurance Bill in 1911. I am not a bit surprised that my friend beside him laughed at the absurdity of the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman. He was
not laughing at his references to the sacrifices of the men in the War, and the right hon. Gentleman knew it, but he chose to turn round upon him and saddle him with a laugh at something which he never was laughing at at all. The right hon. Gentleman says we are robbing the accumulated savings of the soldier.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is untrue. This Fund was compiled by contributions of the soliders' arid sailors' three-halfpence which was deducted from their pay for a few years, but, after that, the Department themselves took upon themselves the full payments, and no deduction was made from the soldiers or sailors or airmen's pay.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I was just as much in that transaction as he was. There was an arrangement made to increase the soldiers' and sailors' pay, and this was simply taken as part of that transaction, and, since he has been good enough to say I knew a certain thing, then again I say that he knows that when he makes that statement.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No. Let us see what this fund is. Whether this fund is built up from the pennies of the soldiers and sailors, or from the Government Departments, it is, as a matter of fact, built up from the money voted by this House in the Army, Navy and Air Votes. At the time of discharge those men whose health was unimpaired were able to join approved societies and get full benefit, and those men are not affected by anything we are doing in this Bill. The only people who could in any way be affected are the 23,000, not 33,000 who are now there, and those who are being discharged in future with impaired health and who are unable to join friendly societies. They are being discharged at the moment at a rate of about 400 a year. What benefits are they entitled to receive? The men in the forces, discharged, etc., shall be entitled to benefits other than additional benefits at the ordinary rates. That is all they are entitled to at this present moment. The Government Actuary says that, after making all provision for payments under that Section of the Act of Parliament, there is a surplus of £1,500,000.
That surplus is not the result of the savings of the three halfpennies and the pennies. These were only to give maternity benefits, and give the men their right to join approved societies. This fund is accumulated out of Government contributions.

Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: And the men's contributions.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: Surely under the Act of 1911 the men contributed 1½d. of their pay?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Up to 1920 that was the ease, but since 1920 it has been paid by the Government Departments out of the funds voted by this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was part of the wages!"] it does not make any difference whether it is deducted from wages or added to the wages.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: If the right hon. Gentleman admits that this may be regarded as partly a wages deduction, then the £1,100,000 does not belong to the Government at all.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman is confusing two things. The penny halfpenny contributed was not more than the amount required for the maternity benefit, and for making the man free of the approved societies as at the age of 16, although he joins when he leaves the Army, whether at the age of 26 or 30 or 36.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Where does this surplus come from?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: From the Government contribution. Let us take this one step further. Let us assume, for the purpose of argument, that the surplus, if you like, arose out of the men's fund. Under the Act, they are only entitled to benefit. without those additional benefits, at the ordinary rates.

Mr. MacDONALD: In order to complete the argument. under the Act the Government are not entitled to help themselves to the £1,100,000. They have, therefore, to produce a new Act to give them power to use that money. Why are they taking power to take the money for themselves without making an equitable distribution of that surplus?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am very glad to answer that. Under the Act as it at present exists the whole of that surplus could be absorbed by the Government without any further sanction from the House at all. It would be absorbed in this way. The Government are now bound to make weekly contributions sufficient to keep the Fund solvent. That is provided in the Act. It would absorb, therefore, the whole of this £1,500,000 by reducing the weekly contribution. That is what would happen supposing this House were to reject the proposals now before it. I hope the House will not reject them for this reason, that, far from robbing the sailors and soldiers and the airmen, we are giving them, not £3,000 a year only, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, but £400,000, which is taken from the £1,500.000 and is set aside—for what purpose? For the purpose of giving additional benefits to which the men are not now entitled. Am I not right in saying that this is a gift to the soldiers, sailors and airmen? Hon. Members will not realise what it is a serving soldier is now entitled to. He is entitled now to ordinary benefits and not to additional benefits. We are now providing that he shall have additional benefits equal to the average of those benefits given by the approved societies, and in order that the Fund shall remain solvent we are giving £400,000 for that purpose. There is £1,100,000 to be transferred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if it were not now transferred it would be absorbed in the course of the next years by the reduction of the contributions required under the Act.
How can anyone say, as has continuously been said, that some harm is being done to the members of the fighting forces? Quite the contrary. Not only is no harm being done, but a great benefit is being given to them, because they are being put on a par with the average of the approved societies, though for the purposes of prejudice and party advantage hon. Members and right hon. Gentleman opposite do not appear to be ashamed to call this proposal, which they ought to understand, by names which will mislead those who have not the opportunity to study the matter carefully, and I can only regret that the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has joined their ranks.

Mr. ATTLEE: I can quite understand the heat of the right hon. Gentleman opposite in suggesting that any Member of the House should ever make party capital out of an Insurance Scheme, but I am rather amazed at the exhibition we have had of the new morality of the right hon. Gentleman. He has the morality of the schoolboy who robs the nest, and hopes it will be all right if he puts one egg back. That is one line. The other line we have had is, "Oh, but this is not really robbing the soldiers and sailors, because this Fund does not really belong to anyone, and so we just came along and thought we might take it." That is the second line. Then there is the third plea of saying, "Oh, no; we are not really committing any act of robbery; it is true we are taking the £1,100,000 in order to make up a deficit in our Budget, but we are not robbing anyone except future generations." Future Chancellors of the Exchequer apparently will have to make payments into this Fund year by year from their Budgets in order to make up for the luxury of the Chancellor of the Exchequer being able to balance his Budget by stealing this £1,100,000 at this time.
Let us look at the real facts of the case, because they have been a good deal clouded by the diverse explanations we have had from right hon. Gentlemen opposite. This Fund has been built up out of contributions. I rather like to take the Government Actuary's statement. as to how this Fund has been built up, because I think it is really more straightforward and fuller than that of the right. hon. Gentleman opposite. First of all, we find it has been built up by contributions made by soldiers and sailors. I do not think we need go any more into any of those questions whether it was paid as direct wages or in deductions, or whether it was paid by the Government in lieu of advances in pay. The fact remains it was built up by the contributions of soldiers and sailors. Next we find that this surplus has arisen because of the greater interest than 3 per cent. which has been paid on the Fund. I wonder why the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not go elsewhere and look around and find out other rentiers who have profited by the rise in interest. Our soldiers and sailors are not the only ones.
who have profited by this rise in the rate of interest on the Fund. What about the banks and all the other people?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is getting rather away from his argument.

Mr. ATTLEE: I will not labour that. I think it is sufficient to indicate the reply to the argument that this advance over three per cent. is a special reason why this should be done. I should like to know why it is wrong that a Fund which belongs to a number of rather impecunious individuals should not have the profit which has come to great numbers of people through the rise in the rate of interest. But there is an offset to that. Take the instance of a sergeant-major who joined the Army before the War, and paid in his pence to this Fund. He paid in his pence, and if they amounted to a pound, that pound was then worth 20s. When he comes to draw his benefit he is only going to get a pound worth 12s. If it is fair to say he should not have the advantage of any advance in the rate of interest, why should he have the disadvantage on the other side by the change in prices. I should have thought that ought to be taken into account.
Let us look into the matter a little further. We find that this Fund was built up by various contributions. There were the contributions of a number of men who joined it for the duration of the War, and therefore contributions were paid, and they afterwards did not come back to insurable employment. They paid that money and it went into the Fund. I do not think those people who paid that money wanted that Fund specially to go to relieve the needs of a Chancellor of the Exchequer who finds himself in difficulties owing to his over-generosity to his wealthy Income Tax payers and Super-tax payers last year. Then a large amount of this Fund was from the reserve values in respect of the men who died in the War. It is an extraordinary thing, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who actually served in the War, collects moneys which became due in respect of those who died in the War and puts them to the benefit for the most part of people who did not take part in the War, but did well out of it. He has not shown
that he has any right to take this money for this purpose. He has not shown in the least why he should not use it for some other benefits for the class of people by whom this Fund was accumulated, namely the soldiers and sailors. He has said "If we had left it in, it would only mean a reduction of State contributions." If he can bring in a Bill to take £1,100,000, he could easily produce a Bill by which this money could have been utilised to reduce the amounts to be paid in by the soldiers and sailors of to-day, or have used it to formulate a scheme of additional benefits to the men who come on to the Fund.
I have looked into the Government Actuary's statement, and there is a very heavy incidence of sickness among these men who come on to this Fund. It is obvious because they are not taken by any other society. Although they require additional benefits, they are going to get not even those given by the best societies, but only the general average. And yet these are the men who ought to get something more and who have been paying in for years good money and get post-War money on the exchange when they come out again. Why should there not be additional benefits there? You could easily have made a scheme to give additional benefits to these men so that those who suffer specially from sickness should get it. Why should not that have been done? Whoever has a claim to that Fund, the soldiers and sailors certainly have a better claim to it than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Even if this will not do, there are other purposes, and purposes which would have been nearer to the hearts of the men who have actually built up this Fund, because we all know why the surpluses really accumulated.
There have been opinions here and there about the cost of administration having been less, but the real reason why this surplus exists is the late War, because the War killed off numbers of people who would have participated in the Fund. After all, I think we might try to get some kind of idea of what those men would have wished. I doubt if many of them would have voted to give this Chancellor of the Exchequer carte blanche for this £1,100,000. I think they would have voted that something should be done for the men who fought in the War. This £1,000,000 might have been used, if the surplus was lying there as a hen roost
ready to be robbed, for some purpose for the permanent benefit of the men who come out of the Army and the Navy, such as their settlement on the land at home or overseas. There would have been something there that could have been done. But no! The Chancellor of the Exchequer has obviously been hunting round to see where he could get hold of some temporary financial assistance, and he found here a Fund piled up by the contributions of men who were not in any way organised, of men who come out of the Army, whose voting strength is not known, and who are therefore a very ready prey to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But does he know of no other cases of funds lying in this country which certainly could just as well have been used as this Fund? It is quite clear why this Fund was selected. It was selected because he thought there would not be very much opposition. I think there will be very strong opposition. It is perfectly useless for the right hon. Gentleman to contend that he is not going to do any harm to those men that would not have been done without the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not have touched the Fund unless there had been this Bill. The whole purpose of the Bill is to touch this Fund. We want the soldiers and sailors to touch it, and not the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What he has done here is this: He is bringing in a Bill by which he takes this £1,100,000. and then just to mask it over, he gives a little miserable hit back.
I think those who have said that this is the meanest dodge that even the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has produced are right. It is a most extraordinary example of sheer robbery of potential benefits, benefits of a Fund which ought, under any decent interpretation of the reasons for which the Fund was formed, to have been used for the beneficiaries, and the Chancellor tries to take advantage of a technicality to use that Fund for entirely different purposes, and for purposes which would not have been approved by the contributors to the Fund.

Mr. J. JONES: Now that all the experts have spoken, there may be an opportunity for those of us who are not experts. I have heard the word "robbery" thrown around the Chamber, which is not supposed to be a dignified
term in which to describe the exploits of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, because they never like to be associated with Robin Hood or gentlemen of that description. They do their robbery in a more scientific way. In 1911 we had explained to us the kind of paradise we should have an opportunity of entering if we only swallowed this great. scheme of National Insurance. The right hon. Gentleman who explained it was an expert then in explaining things to those who did not know, and now he is an expert in trying to fog us, and he is trying to show that the benefits we expected are not going to materialise. The victims of this particular form of robbery are to be the men who were held up to us as great examples of patriotism fighting for their country. They used to be told "Your King and country need you." That was in 1914. But in 1926 they are told "Your King and country want to bleed you by taking your contributions, either directly or indirectly." I cannot understand the quibbling on this point. The Secretary of State for War has told us that these are not direct contributions by the men, because from 1920 onwards the Government have paid them, and, therefore, they are not contributions made directly by the men themselves. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that when the pay of the sailors, soldiers, and airmen was taken into consideration, their contributions to the National Health Insurance was taken into consideration at the same time as part of their pay. He knows that as well as we do, yet. he advances arguments of that character.
Now there is a surplus. Who has produced it? is it the Government or the men? The Government are only accidental for the time being, and they were a very bad accident. We have now £1,100,000 at stake, and that money does not belong to the Government. This is an example of the kind of legislation which I, as a Socialist, would like to introduce on the other side of the House. and on such an occasion when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite come forward with arguments against confiscation, I shall be able to use this proposal as a magnificent example of confiscation by a Parliamentary majority, because the Government are now pinching the money of the poor to save the pockets of the
rich. Every Clause in this Bill means that—

The CHAIRMAN: We must not discuss the Bill now.

Mr. JONES: I am discussing the bill We have got to pay. Before we have finished with this Clause we shall discover that the workers will have to foot the bill right through, and no other class is being called upon to make the same sacrifices. Part of this money which is going to be taken to meet the Chancellor's necessity is being taken from the widows and the children of the men who died during the War. The various approved societies and friendly societies gave extended benefits to those who qualified before they joined the Army and many of those men were members of their various societies before the War took place. The best of those men who answered the call of the country were members of the old-established friendly societies and approved societies. Part of this money belongs to them, and they paid it into their societies not so much for their own benefit but for the benefit of those who came after them. This money is now being deliberately taken by the Government. I would like any hon. Member opposite to visit East Ham and endeavour to defend the Government policy in this respect. Let them go into any constituency in London or in England generally and attempt to defend the policy advocated in this so-called Economy Measure.
In my own constituency some 44,000 men volunteered to fight for their country, and after paying into their friendly societies they find that the money which ought. to have been devoted to providing them with increased advantages is being taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who says to them, "It is all quite right, wait and see, hope against, hope. We are only putting a little of your money by for the future." The supporters of the Government made much political capital out of a famous Red Letter at the last election, and probably at the next election this will be used as a red herring, and we shall be told that the necessities of the nation demand that the other £300,000 which they have retained will also be required for national purposes, and gradually a much larger inroad will be made on these savings and the workers will have to suffer. This should not be called National
Health Insurance but national robbery of the people, who were led to believe that they would benefit by these payments. We are opposing this proposal on behalf of the whole of the workers because the Government seem determined to rob the workers all the time, and this Clause is just as, objectionable to us as any other Clause in the Bill.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: I wish the Secretary of State for War to consider the effect that this proposal is going to have on the men in the Army. After all, the chief people who benefit from this scheme and have been in existence since 1911 are the ex-service men, and it seems to me that this money belongs to those men who have subscribed it, although I know the right hon. Gentleman has stated that the contributions to this Fund have come from the State since 1920. May I point out, however, that although the State has been paying the whole contribution since 1020 it is, in effect, part of the men's pay, and there is no reason why this Fund should not have been used for the benefit of very hardly pressed ex-service men. During the late War these men suffered. very much, and many of them were not able to take any part of this benefit. This only emphasises the fact that those who remain ought to get an additional benefit from the existing Fund. Why should not additional benefit he given to the widows of those men? Under the Widows' Pension Scheme the amount is much too small for the needs of the widows and children of the men who died abroad, who are trying to exist on a very small sum. I cannot help wondering why the Government came forward and proposed such a preposterous scheme by which they rob the men who are the very foundation of the State.
These, contributions have been willingly paid by the men in the past and the effect of this Financial Resolution and this Bill will be to undermine the confidence they have in headquarters. I only need to remind the War Minister of the trouble we had in regard to a much smaller point than this on the Rhine where the men who enlisted should have been paid in sterling but they were paid in marks which were continually depreciating, and they suffered severely in this respect. The same kind of thing is being done now. The men have contributed to this fund and this money is
now being taken from them. I entirely fail to see how the men can benefit as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman by the taking of money from this fund. If the £400,000 can be used for the benefit of the men, how much more benefit could you confer on the men if you also had the other £1,100,000? It seems to me very wrong that this fund should be taken in order to help the national Exchequer. This money belongs as much to the men as if they had put it into a savings bank; therefore, it seems to me very wrong to take this money in this way. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, even at this late stage, will think of another way by which money can be got for the national Exchequer.
There is one point which I think has been overlooked, and it is that there are a great many very hard cases of ex-service men who do not come inside any fund, and they are men who owing to bad health have not been able to get the benefit from this Fund which they ought to have received. Surely this money could have been used to alleviate the sufferings of those men. I could give many examples, especially from the North, of men who are not able to exist on what they are receiving to-day. It seems to me very strange that a Conservative Government should be making a proposal of this kind, and I hope that some of my late colleagues in the Army who are now supporters of the Government will get up and protest against the taking of this money, because it really is a thing that the men will not understand. No matter how often the right hon. Gentleman says lie is going to give them additional benefits, the fact remains that under the Resolution you are taking £1,100,000 from this Fund which has been subscribed by these men from 1911 to 1920, and afterwards by the State, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will find it very hard indeed when he tries to justify this action.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. THOMAS: I do not remember the House of Commons ever experiencing what has happened this afternoon. We have in power a Government who got their majority largely on the advocacy of economy, and now when these proposals are being considered hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are silent and impotent, and dare not even open their mouths on this question. I wonder what
the constituents of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will say when they get a true record placed before them of this afternoon's proceedings? We say deliberately to the other side that this is robbery of the worst kind. We go beyond that, and say that, camouflage it as much as you like, if you were here, dealing with it on its merits, you would say the same as we are saying.

Mr. LANSBURY: Worse!

Mr. THOMAS: I would not say worse, because the language that might be employed might be such as I could not understand. We have stated these cold, hard facts, and we are still waiting to see some supporter of the Government have the courage to get up and say something. I can quite understand certain Members who have not a cat's chance of ever coming back not bothering to say anything, but it is really difficult to appreciate the point of view of those who have. Will the Secretary of State for War answer this specific question, which was put to him by my hon. Friend in the first part of his speech? Ah! I thought that would immediately disturb the right hon. Gentleman. Just let us see. The right hon. Gentleman has the document in his hand. If he will turn to Regulation 20—I see he is getting uncomfortable—

The CHAIRMAN: I am certainly comfortable, and I have not the document in my hand.

Mr. THOMAS: I shall be delighted to supply you with this one, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman has it in front of him. and, if he will turn to Regulation 20, he will see that it says:
For the purpose of advising the Minister as to the administration of benefits payable out of the Fund, and as to the admission to benefit of seamen, soldiers and airmen under the provisions of paragraph (e).…there shall be constituted an advisory committee, hereinafter called the Advisory Committee, consisting of six members, of whom one shall be appointed by the Minister, one by the Minister of Labour for Northern Ireland, one by the Admiralty, one by the Army Council, one by the Air Council, and one by the Secretary of State for India. The Minister may appoint such person as he thinks fit to be secretary to the Advisory Committee.

Mr. LANSBURY: There is a lot more.

Mr. THOMAS: I am coming to the other part in a moment. That is on
page 8. I put it quite clearly to the Committee that that could only mean one thing, namely, that, just as the member of an approved society has the advantage of an executive committee who can advise, who can control, who can supervise, just as the ordinary member of an approved society has someone to look to and say, "This is the responsible body for the administration of our funds"—just as the Minister of Health told us, when we last debated this question, that one morning he called the Advisory Committee together and showed them the draft Bill—this body or ought to be, in precisely the same position—

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): No!

Mr. THOMAS: The hon. Gentleman says, "No," I will tell him why. The other body was merely called into existence and then ignored. They were called into existence, and one afternoon the Minister hurled the Bill at them and said, "How do you like this? We are going to introduce it this afternoon." I submit that this can only mean that this body is an Advisory Committee on insurance matters affecting soldiers, sailors and airmen.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That Committee has been set up, and it is consulted for the purpose for which it is set up—namely, to advise the Minister as to the administration of benefits.

Mr. THOMAS: Now we have got it at last. It is set up. Was this Committee consulted in any way about this proposal?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It has nothing to do with it.

Mr. THOMAS: The Secretary of State says that this Committee has nothing to do with it. I have just, read Regulation No. 20. Let us look at Regulation No. 21, which reads:
If any question arises in connection with the administration of the benefits payable out of the Fund or otherwise under this part of this Regulation, that question shall be determined by the Minister after consultation with the Advisory Committee.
The mean, narrow interpretation put upon it by the Treasury Bench is that
the only people who know anything about the subject, they refuse to consult; they are to be ignored; and these are the people who pose as the friends and champions of the Services! Unlike the approved society member, who will be meeting you in your mass meetings, unlike the ordinary approved society and trade union member, who will turn up and ask you questions about it—

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: We are quite capable of answering them.

Mr. THOMAS: Then you are certainly more proficient there than you are here. If you are as silent there as you are here, the answer will be somewhat in the negative. At all events, the fact remains that you know perfectly well that the people you are dealing with here, the people you are robbing here, are denied by you the right to come and ask you. Was there anything so mean and contemptible? They cannot write to you, they cannot protest, they must not turn up, and you make all these regulations and then, in addition to having gagged them, you say to them, "We will rob you, but we will not allow you to ask us even why we do it." That is the situation.

Captain EVANS: Does the right hon. Gentleman say to the Committee that a serving soldier is prevented by King's Regulations from writing any letters he may desire to write to a prospective political candidate to elucidate his views on certain points?

Mr. THOMAS: I will leave the hon. and gallant Gentleman to discuss that with the Home Secretary, who has been questioned very much on that very point, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman must know, as an acting officer. Can he deny that the ordinary soldier who is affected by this particular Clause is denied the same right of questioning him and agitating on this matter as the ordinary approved society member? I think he admits it. Is that fair? If you admit that it is true, if you admit that it is not fair, surely mere obedience to the party Whip ought not to prevent you from doing something. [Interruption.] That is the best evidence that the consciences of some hon. Members are being touched, after all. If we have succeeded in bringing that home, we shall have done something. I now want to come to the
second stage. When we dealt with Part II, the answer of the Treasury Bench to our charge of confiscation was this: "No. This is money that some time hence may be used, but, for a long period at least, no man or woman can be affected." That was the answer with regard to taking the money under Clause 2. When we come to this Clause, the Government set up an entirely new argument. They say: "This really does not belong to these people at all. This is purely a Government surplus which we could have got at in another way."

Sir GERALD STRICKLAND: Hear, hear !

Mr. THOMAS: That may do in Malta, but just let us see exactly how it works out. Here we have this extraordinary state of affairs, and would it not be better if the hon. Member answered it, rather than introducing Malta—

Sir G. STRICKLAND: I am here as Member for Lancaster, and, surely, I may be allowed to make remarks in that capacity.

Mr. THOMAS: I am sure the Committee would welcome the remarks of the hon. Member, and I hope we shall not be disappointed of hearing his views later on. At the moment I was only pointing out that he was not availing himself of the opportunity.

The CHAIRMAN: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to address himself to me.

Mr. THOMAS: I am sorry, Sir; I was rather led away. I come back now to the question of surplus, and I want the Committee to appreciate exactly what is the agreed statement on the other side, namely, that this money under the one Clause is to provide additional benefits for soldiers and sailors. That is the admitted statement from the other side. In answer to a question which I myself put, as to what are the additional benefits, the Secretary of State said, "We cannot yet say, but we assume they will be the average as between the best and the lowest." I think that that is a fair statement of the ease. just let the Committee observe—because you have to answer the soldiers on this matter—let the Committee observe what that means.
Take my own approved society, which, fortunately, owing to the state of its members' health and to the wonderful administration of myself, is able to provide dental treatment of a substantial kind for its members. But there may be another society, equally well administered, which, owing to bad luck, not only finds itself with no surplus, but with an actual deficit, and, according to the return, there are 10 per cent. of the whole in that position. There are at least another 25 per cent. who do not attempt additional benefit at all. What the Government ought to have done would have been to say, "Here is a surplus, and although, owing to the increased cost of living, we are unable to give the soldier and sailor the equivalent of the benefit that we promised him in 1911"—because let the Committee observe that they are not even getting the equivalent. The right hon. Gentleman has been talking all along about the benefits provided and the benefits promised, but the fact remains that the benefits promised are not materialising to-day because of the increased cost of living and the lower value of money. That is admitted, and surely the Government's obvious duty, in these circumstances, was to say, "Here is a surplus. We are unable to meet the original benefits contemplated, but we have recognised that this surplus belongs in many cases to the poor unfortunate fellows who gave their lives for their country. We want to do the right thing in the spirit and letter of the original intention of the Act."
That is the kind of spirit the Government ought to have shown. Then t hey would have immediately said, "We, being unable to pay you the equivalent. money value of the original benefit promised, will use this £1,500,000 to give the additional benefit to you and you alone." That would have been the way to deal with the surplus. Instead, the Government first take the £1,100,000 out and then turn round and say, "But this is all pure philanthropy on our part. We are giving the people really what they never expected." Of course they did not. They did not expect anything like that from you. We submit that it is not too late for the Government to reconsider the question even now. It is common property that they are uncomfortable. Our object is not to embarrass the Government. We believe we are saving you
from yourselves. We believe we are rendering you the greatest possible service by giving you this advice. We warned you in advance what this Chancellor would get you into. We knew that directly he got with you God knows what would happen. For all these reasons we will go into the Lobby against this Resolution, in addition to which we will tell our constituents how you have robbed them, and we will tell them, in addition, what eloquence was poured out on the Government side in defence of this robbery.

Mr. MORRIS: The speech of the Secretary of State for War supplied a good deal of heat but very little light. His argument in defence of his position in transferring this £1,100,000 was that if the Government did not transfer that sum they would lower the contribution and would re-absorb the £1,100,000 over a period of years, and, as I understand it, would re-absorb it without any further statutory powers at all. It appears from Section 57 of the Act that the amount of the contribution paid by the Government is fixed by statute. But even if the right hon. Gentleman's contention were a true one that, apart from any further statutory authority, all the Government would require to do would be to reassure the amount by reducing their contribution, what is the position? This is a Fund which has been accumulated by the contributions of different classes of people, a Fund which is not a Government fund in any sense of the word. It is not a fund accumulated by the Government; it is not a fund over which they have any control, and if they re-absorbed it without any further statutory power, they would be quite as much guilty of robbery as if they transferred it for another purpose. The right hon. Gentleman's defence is not only, as has been described over and over again, a shabby defence from beginning to end; it is a defence that cannot stand any test. He is taking over a Fund which has been accumulated by the savings of one set of people who will not benefit and will have no voice at all in the determination of the transfer and over the money which they have saved in any form. I was not surprised to hear the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) say this was the best justification a Socialist Government could have for raiding other funds. It
is a, clear precedent and it is levelled against a class of people who cannot complain under the Regulations. Money is taken from people who must perforce remain mute and who cannot protest and put their point of view to the Government. It is one of the shabbiest and meanest acts which have, unfortunately, been made necessary by the rampant waste of the prodigal son whom they placed at the head of the Treasury.

Mr. MONTAGUE: An hon. Member below the Gangway said a little while ago that he would like to hear what the ex-service men themselves would have to say about this proposal to support the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by a raid upon these funds which belong to the ex-service man. I am one of those ex-service men who paid that 1½d week, and while listening to the Minister's speech I wondered what would have been said by the Tommy who fought in the trenches, as I did, if he had been able to get on to Mr. Well's "Time Machine" and listen to this Debate, and especially to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I know the kind of language that would have been used anyhow, and it would be language that transcends what it is possible to use in the House. The right hon. Gentleman says the money in this Fund does not belong to the soldier, sailor, or airman at all but is money which has been contributed by the Government, and if it was mot taken now it. would be re absorbed by reduced contributions, and he justified that statement by saying chat it could he re-absorbed because the Treasury are only called upon to keep the Fund solvent. The majority of people who read Reports of Debates of this character are laymen so far as intricate details of this kind are concerned. If that is a valid argument, and the Government have only been compelled all the time to keep this Fund solvent, how is it that there is a surplus at all? Surely the fact of the surplus proves our contention that the money really belongs to the service man and should not be raided on behalf of the Treasury.
When I came to the House to-day, after having been in my constituency for a day or two hearing various complaints about pensions and other things, I came with a sheaf of documents that I wished to.
deal with to-day, and quite 50 per cent. of these were cases of ex-service men who cannot come under the ordinary approved society benefit, who have run out of any benefit they have in the form of pension or in the form of payment by the State for their disability, men who are to-day, in spite of the heroic deeds some of them I know did in the trenches, dependent upon the Poor Law. Now we are told, although that money is there to be raided, the Committee is only prepared to take about an average of benefit between the lowest status of society and the highest. It would be more than an act of grace, it would be an act of simple justice if instead of taking just an average of benefit they should at least take the highest standard of the approved society and use this money in order to finance it. That would justify the things that were said to the soldiers when they were in the trenches and things that have been said of recent years since I have been a Member of the House. The party opposite claim to be particularly upon the side of the service man. They claim to be more patriotic than we are, more concerned about the interests and the defence of the country, Some time ago a man was sent to prison for distributing leaflets to soldiers at Aldershot advising sedition. I should advise that man, if be wants to do anything of the kind again, in order to sow sedition, if it is sedition, amongst the troops, to prepare another pamphlet telling them the truth about this mean business.

Mr. STEPHEN: I wish to join in the protest against the action of the Government. I congratulate the Secretary of State on the discipline he has imposed upon the forces behind him. I am very doubtful whether, when the people he is responsible for in the Army get to know about his action to-day, it will conduce to discipline in the Army itself. It seems to me the Government is taking up a very extraordinary position. There is this sum of money here, and the Government, because it has a difficult case in various other connections, though it has no real claim to the money at all, decides to take it. I notice that the Fund was established to receive contributions paid in respect of seamen, marines, soldiers and airmen who were not members of approved societies during service, and to
provide ordinary benefits for such men as find themselves unable on discharge to obtain admission to approved societies on account of the state of their health. There is no suggestion that there was also a residuary legatee who was going to be in the position of taking over anything else in connection with this Fund after these ordinary benefits had been supplied. The Actuary points out that the estimated surplus of the Fund is £1,424,000. Accumulating this sum with interest to 31st March, 1926, it reaches approximately £1,500,000. He says this surplus arises from a variety of causes, of which the following are the more important. The first cause attributed in respect of the surplus is:
The rate of interest earned by the Fund has been substantially in excess of that assumed (namely: three per cent.) in the basis of the contributions and reserve values. Further the surplus during its growth has earned a large amount of interest.
When we consider the first reason given, there is nothing to suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have a claim upon this surplus. I would like the Secretary of State for War or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, if he has to take over this baby of the Secretary of State for War, to explain to us the exact connection there is between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and this surplus. The second reason for the surplus, given by the Actuary, is:
The cost of administration, in the case of serving men, has been much below the sum provided in the contributions.
Again, I would like the Secretary of State for War or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to explain the connection between that reason and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and why this money should go to the Exchequer. The third reason is:
The contributions; contain la margin which in the case of approved societies is carried to their contingencies funds, but which in the present case has accrued directly to the principal fund.
There is a reference here to the method adopted in connection with the approved societies. Again, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the activities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer have no connection whatsoever with this surplus that has accrued. When we come to the
fourth reason for the surplus, we find it stated that:
The reserves released in respect of men who were killed during the War or who died as the result of wounds or disease due to the War, have been specially heavy in the case of this Fund, nearly the whole of the contributors to which were serving with the Forces in the War.
If this Committee agrees to this proposal, in view of that one statement as a reason for this surplus, it will take a very invidious step, and a step which no Member of the Committee could go on to any platform and defend. I would like to put it to the representative of the Government that here is an opportunity in connection with this surplus to provide for the people for whom the Fund was meant. It is no doubt true that what was conceived of were the ordinary benefits, but owing to the reasons given the Fund has come into its present position. Instead of the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking this money, and possibly using it in some way for the reduction of Income Tax, it is the plain business of the Government to see that the benefits in connection with the Fund accrue to the members of the Services.
I have in hand the case of an individual who would have a claim upon this Fund. He has a bigger claim on the War Office than the War Office has been willing to admit. The man served in the Army, and while in the Army he contracted tuberculosis. After spending many months in hospital he was discharged from the Army, and the Secretary of State for War has told me that he cannot get a pension, because they cannot say that there was a certain stormy night when there was a special shower of rain and wind which was responsible for this man contracting tuberculosis. He says that the disease was possibly constitutional. Any medical authorities, which I have heard regarding this constitutional weakness, take the line that if the environment has been proper and suitable, the individual will not become a victim to tuberculosis. The War Office has nothing to offer this man with regard to pension, and when the man might claim something in the way of additional benefit from this Fund in the state of health in which he finds himself, we are told to-day by the Secretary of State for War that he might
get some little additional benefit up to the average, but not over the average.
The Government's position amounts to this: do not do anything specially to help these men who have been the victims of the military machine; do not do anything to give them a little comfort in the circumstances in which they are placed. It means that we must not hope for anything above the average of the benefits in connection with the approved societies. If the Fund could not stand it, one might he inclined to say: "We are sorry, but the provisions that have been made are not able to sustain more than a certain amount of claim." Here is the money to meet the claim, and instead of these people getting it the money is to be spent by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in some other fashion, giving some relief to the rich, to defend whom these men have offered their bodies. The Secretary of State for War, instead of defending these men, and instead of regarding the interests of the men in the Army as the big interest entrusted to him, is so anxious not to get in the way of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so anxious not to offend the right hon. Member, that he disregards altogether the possibilities of providing additional benefits for wounded soldiers, for the men who have lost their health in the service of the country.
This is a most preposterous proposal that is now made to us. Possibly it is what we might have expected. The Secretary of State for War and the well-disciplined army behind him in this House are careless with regard to the conditions of the men who have served their purpose in the Forces. I put to the Secretary of State for War, when the Army Estimates were before us, the condition of the man to whom I have referred. He could not do anything for him. Here to-day the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and this Government of rich men, are going to take from this victim of tuberculosis, contracted while he was in the Army, the additional benefit he might have obtained out of this Fund. It was possible for the Secretary of State for War in connection with the Advisory Committee in administering this Fund to take into consideration the cases I have mentioned, and if he did so there would be no one to find fault
with him. The other soldiers who had contributed to the Fund, and also the men in the Navy and in the Air Force who had contributed would not have complained if some of their fellows had been assisted in the way I suggest. It is obvious that they will make complaint if millionaires are to obtain this money that has been taken out of the pockets of the ordinary members of the Services.
This surplus having accrued, it is within the power of the Secretary of State for War to bring a gleam of hope into the lives of these people and to bring them a little special comfort, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will let their Government know that although they are prepared to stand a good deal from them in the way of canting humbug in their treatment of the ordinary people of this country, they are not prepared—

The CHAIRMAN: In the use of the words "canting humbug" the hon. Gentleman is going beyond Parliamentary usage.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: What does the man in the street say about it?

Mr. STEPHEN: If it is not canting humbug on the part of this Government, I am willing to use some other expression, and I would say that it is simply a case of robbery on the part of the Government. One of my hon. Friends suggests that a rose by another name would smell as sweet. This policy of the Government will not smell sweet in the nostrils of any decent, respectable people. I would like to put a question to the Secretary of State for War if he would waken up for a minute. I know it has been a strain on him to defend a policy like this, and he may be exhausted in. consequence. Is he not prepared to meet the criticism that has been made to-day? Is he not prepared to meet us in regard to the benefits that will be given, and to say that the benefits will be as high as in the very best approved societies, rather than the "average." Is he going to give us any concession? It may be all very well for the Government now, with their big majority, and with their assurance that everything is going to go well for them, but if an industrial crisis takes place, they may be very glad of the services of the Army at no distant date. An Army that is going to be treated in this fashion
by them will be, to my mind, an Army more likely to act in accordance with what I would like than in accordance with what the Secretary of State for War would hope for.
There is no doubt, every hon. Member in this House knows it, the Secretary of State for War knows it, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows it, that these men have a rightful claim to the surplus. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here because he would not like to hear the criticisms which have been made of this proposal. He must be ashamed of the proposal, and he has got his weaker brother, the Secretary of State for War, to undertake the job for him, possibly because he thinks that, as the right hon. Gentleman has the Army behind him, he will be the better able to defend a proposal such as this. It is a mean proposal to take from the soldiers and from the sailors and the airmen who have become the victims of disease the benefits that they might have got under this scheme.
Why should the Chancellor of the Exchequer get this £1,100,000? Why should it go into the Exchequer? Why should it not go to the people for whom it was intended Some of us have asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer questions in regard to the way in which the National Debt might be dealt with. He raises his hands in pious horror at the suggestion of interfering in any way with people who have investments in the National Debt. That is a sacred contractual obligation, and it is a terrible thing to break a sacred obligation which has been made with a rich person, a millionaire, but it is no great crime in the mind of a Conservative Government when the contractual obligation has been made' with "Tommy Atkins." The Government are prepared to rob Tommy Atkins, and the sailor and the airman too, quite convinced that they can get off with it. There is military discipline and the Army Act which will allow them to deal with anyone who gets a little obstreperous.
Every Member of the Government should be ashamed of these proposals, and I am surprised that more Members opposite, who do know something about financial obligations, Members like the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise), should allow these preposterous proposals
to pass without some criticism. I appeal to them in the interests of these victims of disease to join us in the protest we are making. The Government may appear strong, but a little action from some Members who sit on the Back benches opposite would do good to those men in the Air Force, to men in the Army and in the Navy, who are now lying on beds of sickness, the victims of disease contracted during their service with the Forces of the Crown. They would be very thankful for the benefits which any decent Government would give them from funds that have accumulated in this way. I hope the Secretary of State for War, if the sleeper is now awake, will tell us that he is going to reconsider this matter in the interests of the people for whom the money was intended.

Sir J. SIMON: I presume we shall have some reply from the Government to the points that have been raised, but the Secretary of State for War will allow me to put briefly what can be very seriously urged about this Clause without using the highly rhetorical language which opponents of it are naturally tempted to use. I have not the slightest desire to use words like "robbery." I remind myself of the famous conversation between Falstaff and Bardolph when Falstaff complains of Bardolph's open thieving and ancient Pistol observes:
Convey, the wise it call: Steal ! foh; a fico for the phrase.
I do not mind whether you call it a transference from the Fund to new purposes or whether you call it robbing the Fund. The thing which Members of the Committee are anxious about is whether or not, looking at it fairly and squarely, it is doing right by the people concerned. I do not for one moment believe that Members opposite are any less concerned to see that what is right is done in this matter than any of the rest of us, but their silence in this Debate shows that they have extremely uncomfortable qualms, and the circumstance that no single supporter of the Government can support this proposal is a strong practical reason for thinking that something quite indefensible is being done. May I, with great respect, point out how this matter strikes anyone who has studied the actual provisions of the law. I concede the Secretary of State for War this point; he is perfectly entitled to take it and use
it for what it is worth. He is quite right in saying that by the exact terms of the Section the benefits which were contemplated from the Fund were minimum benefits as distinguished from additional benefits. But I do not believe that in the realm of common-sense or in the view of any court of equity his argument based on that would hold water for one moment.
No one knows better than the Attorney-General, who I see is sitting with the Secretary of State for War, that if a fund is really held in trust for the purpose of providing benefits A, B, and C, and there is more money in the fund than is necessary for these benefits, any court of equity, assisted by the Attorney-General, would proceed to say that the fund must be used for the nearest approximate purposes consistent with the general scheme of the trust. That is perfectly familiar to the Secretary of State for War and to the Attorney-General, and it is not a mere technical point. It is a substantial point. The real point is that the money which has been put into this Fund is money which beyond all question was put there for the purpose of providing benefits for the class of person on whose behalf it was subscribed. To say it was put there for the purpose of preventing there being an addition to the Income Tax or of being used for the general needs of the country is to talk palpable nonsense. The Secretary of State for War is the last person who can say so. He, himself, put before the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance a memorandum of his own which is referred to on page 225 of the Report, where the Commissioners say:
We have received a statement from the Secretary of State for War on behalf of the three Service Departments submitting two suggestions for improving the position of men discharged from the Forces as regards title to additional benefits.
The Report gives the reference and says that the statement is to be found in the appendices. I went to the Library in order to see whether these appendices were available and the Librarian gave me a copy. I find the statement under the heading:
Statement submitted by the War Office as to additional benefits for members of the Navy, Army and Air Force Insurance Fund.
The statement is a little too long to read in full, but the result is perfectly plain, that at the time the Secretary of State
for War was framing his statement and putting it before the Commission it never entered his head that this Fund was available for general purposes. The whole memorandum deals with it on this basis, that it is a fund which has been put up on behalf of these men, and it says:
Some doubt appears to have been felt in 1911 as to the ability of the Fund to meet these liabilities, and the obligation to maintain its solvency was accordingly placed upon the Service Departments. Presumably in view of this condition it was decided that members of the Fund should not be entitled to additional benefits.
The Government actuary has advised that the resources of the Fund are adequate to provide for the cost of these concessions.
My point is that as Secretary of State for War he brought this document to the, attention of the Commissioners of National Health Insurance, because he felt that this Fund, subscribed for by men for whom he is particularly responsible, was a Fund which was available for an extended use on their 'behalf, and I do not find one single word in his memorandum in which he suggests that this money can be taken for any other purpose. On the contrary it is plain, if you read the memorandum, that he is dealing with this Fund, as any plain man would deal with it, as a Fund constituted by a series of contributions by a particular class of persons.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Why "class"?

Sir J. SIMON: Because every single contribution is paid in respect of a person who is a soldier, a sailor, or an airman—nobody else at all—and there is a special Section of the Act under which these contributions are made. The real position is that having provided out of the Fund for those men who are able to join an approved society there remain a number of people who are particularly interested; and let the Committee consider who they are. They are men who because of their war service or any other misfortune happening after their war service are so unfit and below the standard of normal health that no approved society will take them. Let hon. Members appreciate that fact. These are the people who have a special interest in this Fund. They are the people who cannot join an approved society. Many of them are people who
have tried to get a pension, but who have been told that, while it is true they are suffering very much now, they have not succeeded in showing that their suffering is due to their war service. And they may not succeed. If there are any people in England who are entitled to the full consideration of this Committee it is these men. [An HON. MEMBER "What about the Fund?"] The Act of Parliament provides in terms that a soldier or sailor should pay his 11d. a week and that the State should pay another 11d. Later on a readjustment was made by which the State paid a rather larger amount, but the Secretary of State for War does not suggest that that makes any real difference.
The real truth is that this Fund has been provided on behalf of, in the interests of, and, in effect, at the expense of, these Services. You may say, and it is true, that the great mass of people who have contributed to this Army, Navy and Air Force Fund are not all of them going to benefit by it. That is true. Millions of them have passed away already.
6.0 P.M.
But if you were to put to any one of these men, when they were made to contribute, whether they thought they were contributing to a Fund which the State could take for its own purposes, or whether they thought they were contributing to a Fund which was earmarked for the general purpose of benefits for soldiers and sailors and airmen, there cannot be the slightest doubt as to what the answer would be. That is the real point. It is not a technical point.; it is a very broad point of substance, as to which I am certain that hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite are just as uncomfortable as I am. It seems to me to be a very sad thing if at this stage, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in an emergency, we should say: "Now here is this Fund which was built specifically for the purpose of providing benefits for this class of person. Well, to such and such an extent, to the extent of £1,100,000, it shall be diverted and used for quite a different purpose." I spoke of these men as a class. As to that there is not only the language used in 1911, but the language which was used as lately as 1924 in order to describe this very Fund. If the question is, what is the Fund for, to
what general purpose is it directed? Here it is as voted by the House of Commons in 1924:
For the purpose of providing seamen, marines, soldiers and airmen with such benefits during their term of service and after their return to civil life as are hereinafter mentioned.
It is no good hon. Members telling me to read on, and that the Section speaks only of normal benefits. The Secretary of State for War is the very last person who should use that argument. Here are his own words in his own Memorandum:—
Presumably in view of the fear of the Fund not being enough, it was decided that members of the Fund should not be entitled to additional benefits.
Then the right hon. Gentleman goes on, on behalf of soldiers and sailors to urge that the Fund ought to be extended to analogous purposes. Without attempting to use words like "robbery" and "cheating" and "thieving," or anything of the kind, I say that we are in a position which a great many of us may hereafter most bitterly regret. Does anyone believe that the Secretary of State for War would come here and do this if it were not that his colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is pressed to find £1,000,000? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had tried to lay his fingers on this Fund at a time when there was a surplus, would the Secretary of State for War not have fought to keep every penny of it for the people whom he represents? Of course he would.
After the War I served for two or three years as one of the trustees of that great corporation which endeavours to administer all sorts of funds connected with the Army, Navy and Air Force, the precise original purpose of which has been exhausted. Hon. Members will know that there were many such. There were funds raised for a particular regiment or a particular corps. or funds for people in a particular place, and it was not possible any longer to use those funds exactly according to the terms of the original trust. What did we do? Of the trustees, Sir William Plender was one, a distinguished general was another, and my unworthy self was a third. Did we say, "Here is a lump of money which cannot be used for the exact purpose for which it was originally intended, and we will hand it over to the Treasury?" Not
at all. We saw that the money was devoted to objects which were analogous to the objects originally intended and which would help the same kind of people or the same class of people. in order that-the real spirit of the original scheme should be applied.
Exactly the same thing ought to be done here. There is no man of business, no competent lawyer who, if he were presented with the facts about this Fund, would tell you that because you have already provided for these original benefits, therefore the balance goes to reduce taxation, or to pay for some utterly different purpose. That is contrary to common sense and the plainest dictates of equity. It is contrary to what the Secretary of State for War himself would have been the very first to insist upon if it had not been that we were living in an astonishing world in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has this Economy Bill with three main things in it, one of which he leaves the Minister of Health to defend, because it involves a raid on the approved societies; the second which he leaves to the Secretary of State for War to defend, because it is an attack upon this Fund; and the third of which, I suppose, is to be defended by the Noble Lord the President of the Board of Education. This is indeed putting the Treasury into commission. The one person who is never here is the person who has caused all this disturbance, all this quaking inside amongst Members opposite—[Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but they will laugh the other side of their mouths when they meet a soldier or a sailor.
It is entirely because all the cheerful boastings as to what could be done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer have come to naught that you have one after another of his colleagues turning up here with an embarrassed smile endeavouring to find some justification for this or that or the other raid, when the real truth about it is that no one would ever think of using a penny of this money for any purpose, except the purpose of benefiting soldiers and sailors and airmen, if it were not for the difficulties, the embarrassments, and the anxieties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I make these remarks because I hope we may hear what the answer is. I have listened to every word of the Debate, to both of the speeches of the Secretary of State for War, and I am
sincerely anxious to know whether any of my propositions are denied. I will sum them up briefly.
Is it denied that this money may fairly be regarded as money provided by soldiers, sailors and airmen, notwithstanding that in fact it is paid out of the Army or Navy Vote? It cannot be denied, for the Secretary of State for War admitted it an hour ago. Is it denied that the reason why the statutory purpose for which this Fund was to be devoted was restricted to the normal benefits, was because of anxieties lest the Fund should not be able to stand a more extensive drain upon it? It cannot be denied, because it is admitted by the Secretary of State for War in the Memorandum which I have just read. Is it denied, in common sense or in a Court of equity, that if you have money which has been collected for some purpose that is narrowly defined, and you find that there is more than can be used for that purpose, the proper use to which to put the money is an analagous purpose? No one can deny that. It follows necessarily, whatever language you choose to use, that this is in fact the taking away of a fund, which has arisen in circumstances which we thoroughly understand, from objects which would certainly be the objects that the Secretary for War would be anxious to promote if, indeed, he was not pressed and embarrased by his colleague. In these circumstances it matters very little whether hon. Gentlemen opposite take part in the Debate or not. Everyone may draw his own conclusions from their silence. The reason why they take no part in the Debate is either that they have had orders not to do so, or that there is not one of them who can think of a single word in defence of this Clause.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am very sorry to inflict on the Committee another speech, and I propose to confine myself to the one point of the right hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to the Memorandum which I put before the Insurance Commission. I will not argue on the legal point, for I am not competent to do so. But I understood in the old days, that when There was a general charitable intention and a fund was excessive, you might try to find another charitable use as near as possible to the original charitable use; but on the contrary, when there is not a general
charitable intention, there is a resulting trust in favour of the donor. In this case it was much more appropriate that there should be a resulting trust in favour of the donor. I will pass from the general to the particular charge that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made.

Sir J. SIMON: I am not anxious to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman. Who, in his view, is the donor?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Again I do not want to recur to the speeches I have already made, but will in two sentences express my view, because I do not want to appear to run away from the challenge. The original Clause provided that 1½d. should be taken from the serving soldier, and that the Government should make up the whole of the balance, whatever it was to be. No one could tell what the real weekly contributions ought to be. More were paid in than were necessary for the purpose. A surplus of £1,500,000 has resulted, because the Government of the day has continued to pay into that Fund more than was required. That is a fact.

Sir J. SIMON: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon for interrupting. Surely be has unintentionally conveyed a wrong impression. He has conveyed the impression that the amount contributed by the Government was an amount which they contributed, within their own judgment. The original Act provided that the Government should pay 1½d., and the Act of 1924 contains the exact number of pence and halfpence that the Government should contribute.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Generally the right hon. and learned Gentleman is accurate. On this occasion he is not accurate. I would draw attention to Section 59, Sub-section (1, b), of the Act of 1924, which re-enacted the original Act of 1911. It says:
The weekly contributions to he made by the Admiralty, Army Council and Air Council in respect of men of the Forces shall be such as may from time to time be required to keep the Fund solvent.
What they did, in fact, do was to pay in weekly contributions in excess of the sum that was required to keep the Fund solvent.

Sir J. SIMON: I am perfectly right, and no one knows that better than the right hon. Gentleman. Will he kindly look at Section 57, which says:
For the purpose of providing seamen, marines, soldiers and airmen with such benefits during their term of service and after their return to civil life, as are hereinafter mentioned, there shall be paid to the Minister by the Admiralty, Army Council, and Air Council respectively, out of the moneys provided by Parliament.…in respect of every seaman and marine, and of every soldier of the regular Forces…and of every member of the regular Air Force, if such seaman, marine, soldier or airman is a member of an approved society, a sum of fourpence halfpenny, etc., etc.
The provision which the right hon. Gentleman quoted from Section 59 is the provision which secures that if that contribution was not enough the Department guarantees the solvency of the fund. I can be corrected if I am wrong. Both in the 1911 and 1924 Acts there was a defined amount which was to be paid in respect of each man week by week, and the other provision is a provision to cover the possible case of the fund requiring further money to keep it solvent.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not want to be drawn into a detailed argument.. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] The sum paid in was more than sufficient for the purpose.

Sir J. SIMON: Then I am right.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right in saying that 4½d. was the fixed sum which Parliament said was to he paid in, but I am equally right in saying that that sum is in excess of the amount which was required for the purpose. Now let me deal with the point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made regarding the memorandum submitted by me to the Royal Commission. This Fund had, in my judgment, a surplus, and I wanted the removal of the limitation originally in the Act, which restricted the benefits payable to ordinary benefits. I wanted to give to the soldier, the sailor or the airman who was in this Fund, something additional, and I put a memorandum before the Royal Commission—who were all experts —in order that they might consider whether the proposal I made was fair or not. The right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted from the Report of the Royal Commission, but he did not quote enough. The Royal Commission referred to two suggestions which I
made. One was that there should be additional benefits, equivalent to the average of those provided by the Approved Societies. The second was that men on discharge from the Forces should not be subject to a waiting period, but should get full benefit in the Approved Societies the moment they left the Services. Those were my two proposals and the Royal Commission accepted them. On the top of the following page of the Report will be found the words:
and we therefore recommend that statutory provision be made accordingly.
They recommended that these proposals should be made statutory provisions and the Measure to be based on the Financial Resolutions which we are now discussing, will make them statutory provisions, exactly in accordance with the advice of the Royal Commission.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I was not greatly surprised when an hon. Member below the Gangway and my lion. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) were rebuked by the Chairman for having used strong language regarding this miserable proposal. When one, in a discussion such as this and in the atmosphere which surrounds it, remembers the appeals, the promises and the pledges made to service men or to those who were being invited to become service men, in times of national need, it is difficult not to blush for human-kind and particularly for that section of human-kind known as politicians. The right hon. Gentleman in the first of his three speeches referred to pledge that the benefits to be derived by the service men out of the remnants of this fund, will not be less than the additional benefits which accrue to a member of an approved society. When pressed to state whether he referred to the best societies or to the others, he carefully avoided the point. I am not so much interested in his evasion of that point, as in the cheek which he displays in the plea he puts forward. When he tells us they are to receive benefits equivalent to the additional benefits paid by the approved societies, he invites us to forget that in this very Economy Bill are provisions which are bound to reduce the additional benefits of those approved societies. He lowers by one section of his Measure the standard of additional benefits, and he claims for the other
section of his Measure that nothing in it will prevent recipients from obtaining from the service fund, what they could obtain from the approved societies.
Most of the right hon. Gentleman's other arguments seem to be equally lacking in logic. He was pressed to say why the Fund was being raided at all. Is the Fund being raided because it is unnecessary for the purposes for which it has been created? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health appears to say "Yes." I accept the view that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year had at his disposal the £42,000,000 which he distributed last year, he would not come to the House of Commons and ask permission to raid this Fund. I submit that the proposals now before us would never have arisen but for the battered political fortunes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer Twelve months ago, the right hon. Gentleman inherited a much better financial position than the country now enjoys, and he inherited it as a result of the careful and economical administration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer then found himself with £42,000,000 10 play with, but he never thought of devoting any portion of that money to additional benefits for ex-service men or any other service men. He distributed that £42,000,000 among his friends of the middle and upper classes. Now he is the heir to his own blunder. Now he is faced, not with a £42,000,000 surplus, but with a situation in which be finds it difficult to make ends meet. If one did not know the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the history of the party opposite, one might expect him to seek his £1,000,000 this year, where he placed his £42,000,000 last year. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer does nothing of the kind. He gives £42,000,000 to the rich; he comes for his £1,000,000 to the poor. I submit to the Parliamentary Secretary that his Department would never have acquiesced, any more than the Department represented by the right hon. Gentleman who has submitted this proposal, in the demand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if that demand had been made in a year of prosperity instead of a year of adversity.
May I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that there were other sources from
which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have been invited by the Parliamentary Secretary's own Department to find this money? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has conspicuously failed in obtaining from the French Government money which is admittedly due by that Government to this country. If the right hon. Gentleman had not failed in his duty in his dealings with France, he would not be accused to-day of robbing a fund created for the betterment of the ex-service men of this country. The Minister of Health is the trustee and the guardian of the Fund which we are now discussing. The Ministry of Health ought to have stood up to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the right hon. Gentleman proposed to raid this Fund. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry is here as the watchdog of the interests of this section of the insured people. The watchdog has not even favoured us with a bark. He has smiled, and wagged his tail, and licked the hand of the invader. He has allowed the people for whose welfare he is responsible to be plundered in the interests of the super-taxpayers of this country. I submit that if the attitude adopted by Briand towards the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been adopted by the. Minister of Health, these provisions would never have been brought before the House of Commons. May I put it to the representative of the Ministry of Health, that it is not a burden on the taxpayers of this country to have to provide out of public funds additional benefits under the National Health Insurance Scheme May I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the prevention of disease which accrues from the administration of National Health Insurance, has probably saved this country more millions. than have been contributed by the taxpayers into the National Health Insurance Fund? May I also remind him that the authors of the National Health Insurance policy, and the enthusiasts who have supported it through thick um] thin from its inception, have had as their goal a disease-free nation, and that the surpluses existing to-day are the. results of a partial realisation of their dream. May I submit to him that it is the soundest national policy, even from a financial point of view, to put in the hands of the poorest section of the. people of this country the means of protecting their health.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): I hope the right hon. Gentleman will confine himself to the subject-matter of the particular Resolutions which we are discussing.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I think I will have no difficulty in convincing you, Sir, of the relevancy of my arguments. My argument is that instead of this £1,000,000 being taken from benefits and applied, probably to battleships, it ought to have been devoted to additional and further additional benefits to the people for whom it was intended; that if it were applied in that way, which I submit to be the proper way, it would go some length towards giving us a healthier population; that a, healthier population is an insurance to the taxpayers and ratepayers of the country; that if one could estimate in bard cash what is lost in taxes and rates, in industrial efficiency, in lost time through bad health, one would recognise what an idiotic economy it is to raid a Fund which has as its main and, indeed, its only object, the betterment of the health of the people. I am submitting that what is called economy here is the very worst form of extravagance. Here is a Government, that has been appealed to from all quarters of the country to practice economy, and the very first step which they take in their policy of economy is to raid the Funds that have largely accrued from the economies of other people.
I put it to the representative of the Ministry of Health, particularly, that we are here face to face with a very serious situation. If it can be said and maintained on the part of the Government that they are entitled to raid this Fund because their contributions to it have not been necessary for the standard of benefits that obtain at the moment, then they can justify the raiding of every Fund in connection with National Health Insurance. It is a retrograde step. The proper policy is to extend your benefits, to give to every section of the community—and to begin with this section of the community where you have the money with which to do it—the means of protecting themselves against the diseases of life. If the Ministry of Health adopted and pursued that policy, then the aim of the
health enthusiasts of this country, of obliterating disease from the path of our people, would be nearer realisation, and the prosperity of this country would be greater and better ensured than it will be by handing over to an extravagant Chancellor of the Exchequer money that was meant for the purposes of public health.
I do not know whether any good is to be derived from appealing to the Government, even at this stage, not to press for this money, but I am quite satisfied that, if the case for its retention for its original purpose had been presented to the Government before the proposal got to its present length, we would not be to-day in the disgraceful position of robbing the small funds that were created for the benefit of a very useful and a very worthy section, at any rate from the point of view of the party opposite, in order to save from further taxation people who could bear quite easily and without suffering the burden of taxation that they endured before the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget last year.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Not being an experienced lawyer, I shall not spend a great time in putting forward the very few points that I have to make. When the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) was speaking, he used the word "class," and I interrupted to challenge the use of that. word, because think it is a misleading use in this connection. It may be that the word "class" is being constantly used in this Debate because of its propaganda effect outside. The Fund we are considering is a Fund which was contributed to by probably nine millions of persons. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was rather surprised when I interrupted with that figure, but it should be borne in mind that every one who passed through the ranks of all the forces during the War was for the time being an insured person, that many of them were not insured before they joined up, and ceased to be insured persons after, and that the persons who contributed to this Fund and who built it up are to-day the general body of the adult civilisation of the country, and if anyone is entitled to it, they are entitled to it. There is no effective means of distributing it among those who, by their
contributions, have built it up, so far as it is built up out of the contributions of the serving soldier, airman, and seaman, and the fairest way in which those who contributed it can get it back, so far as it is surplus to requirements, is through a relief to the general burden of taxation. The burden of taxation is far too heavy, but every project for economy is bitterly opposed by some interested section or another, or is opposed on grounds of general party politics.
The challenge has been thrown out as to why no one on our side of the House has taken part in the Debate. The reason is perfectly clear. On occasions when Debates have been continued at unnecessarily great length, the bulk of Members on my side of the House—I am occasionally an exception—have the discretion not to intervene, and it is never necessary for us to be instructed, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to suggest, not to speak. We are quite prepared to give loyal support to our own side by speaking when speaking is helpful, and by silence when silence is more helpful than speech.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I cannot help thinking that probably the right hon. Gentleman who sits on the Government bench will feel that perhaps it was a mistake of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams), who has just sat down, to break the rule of not speaking in the belief that this was an occasion on which his speech might be useful. His ingenious argument that it would be to the advantage of the nine million contributors that this sum of £1,100,000 should be taken and devoted to the general purpose of the relief of the taxpayer, is hardly one that will commend itself to those concerned. In the first place, it leaves out of account the fact that of those nine millions, a very large proportion, unfortunately, are not now in the country, and many of them died in the War, and surely the fact that nearly all the ex-Service men and officers of every rank who have spoken to-day have condemned these proposals shows that the great majority of the survivors, if you were to consult them, would undoubtedly condemn the proposal of taking money from this Fund and using it for a reduction of taxation.
I was astonished when I read the proposals that I find in the Bill. I listened with the greatest attention to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War—than whom no man in this House is a greater master of lucid exposition, and no man knows the insurance question better than he does and has more experience in this controversy—expecting some reasonable defence of the proposals which have been put before us in this Bill. I made careful notes of such arguments as he used, but I must say that I find that nearly every one of them has been so readily exploded by the arguments of hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken from this side of the House that there is hardly one to which it is worth while referring.
I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman, when he sat down, thought fit to refer to suggestions that those who feel it their duty to criticise these proposals are animated by a desire to make party capital out of them. I certainly believe that it is very far from the motives of those who have been speaking from this side—and the majority of those who have spoken were men who have served in all ranks of the forces—to make party capital out of these proposals. We desire to discuss them on their merits, and it is the right hon. Gentleman himself, who, in a speech which my right hon. Friend behind me said contributed more heat than light to the discussion—he might have added more heat and sound than light to the discussion—who has refused to discuss the question on its merits, and resumed his seat in a climax of a thunder clap, in which he said that we who were criticising it were animated by party considerations. As a matter of fact, could any suggestion be more absurd? The men affected are only a few thousands, and are these votes going to sway any election? No; if there be any party capital to be made out of the criticism at all it would be due only to this one consideration, that the moral sentiment of the electors who are not directly affected by the right hon. Gentleman's proposals will be so aroused at the idea of laying hands on this Fund that they will turn upon those who support the proposal which the right hon Gentleman has put before us.
He started out in his speech by saying that he would prove that the charge of
robbery was untrue, but, like many other mariners, though not usually mariners so experienced as himself, who set out on the stormy seas of oratory, he found that the contrary winds of fact drove him into a harbour which was by no means the destination which he had hoped to reach. He said that the reason why the soldiers only received the ordinary benefits was that the Departments guaranteed the Fund, and he also said that they only contributed their ½d. for a few years. In point of fact, they contributed their 1½d. during the currency of the scheme for nine years, whereas it is only six years ago that it was decided that the Government should pay the contributions. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, when the Government made that change and decided to make the whole contribution, it was understood, and stated at the time, that it was only as an addition to the pay of the men.
Then he said that the surplus does not arise out of the contributions of the men but out of the contributions of the Government. What is the contribution of the Government? It corresponds to the contribution of the employer in the case of an industry, and you might as well say that none of the surpluses of any of the societies arise from the contributions of the men. Of course, they do not. They arise from the general contributions of the men, the employers, and the State, aria exactly the same thing holds good in the case of this Fund. Then he went on to say that if this particular Measure was not passed, what would happen would be that the contributions of the Government would be gradually reduced, ignoring the fact, which has been pointed out by subsequent speakers, that the Government contribution is statutorily fixed—it was pointed out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon)—but, as a matter of fact, not only is it so, but it is proved by his own Memorandum that he himself in 1923 contemplated that arrangements would be come to whereby this Fund would be distributed for the benefit of soldiers, sailors, and airmen. He says, in reply to that, that the proposals which were approved by the Royal Commission are being put into force He says, it is true, that he came before the Royal Commission and made two proposals
which were approved by the Commission, and he invites the Committee to believe that those proposals are now being carried into effect. As a matter of fact, it is true that, the first one is being carried into effect, but as regards the second proposal, in the case of men who transfer to approved societies on discharge from the Forces, the new provisions take the, form of requiring them, for the purpose of title to additional benefits, to
be treated as though they had been members of the society from the date of their joining the Forces, and that to enable this to be done the transfer values payable out of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Insurance Fund in respect of such men should be augmented by the estimated share of surplus earned during their period of service.
As regards that, only a discretionary power is given by the Bill which we are discussing, and only a discretionary power is given to the Minister, to allow this provision to be made by regulation. That benefit which was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman himself, a proposal that was approved by the National Health Insurance Commission, is not in fact carried into full effect by the Bill which we are now discussing. The only reason obviously, is that the money may not be available, and the reason why the money may not be available is that the right hon. Gentleman is taking that £1,100,000 out of the Insurance Fund. The right hon. Gentleman appeared before the National Health Insurance Commission like a benevolent, warm-hearted Jenny Wren, and he laid on the table of the Royal Commission an egg. But since then a cuckoo has been at work, and the nature of the bird that has been hatched, is very different, indeed, from the proposal he laid before the Royal Commission. Then I would like to know what is the average of additional benefits given by the approved societies. They give benefits of every sort and kind. How can you average benefits given? On that point, I would like most strongly to emphasise the appeals made by hon. Members on these benches, at any rate, to assure to the men the benefits paid by the very best approved societies. I feel quite confident that if the right hon. Gentleman were to see his way to make such a concession, it would be warmly approved by service Members on both sides of the House. After all, this is not the Government's money; it is the men's money. It has
been contributed by the men themselves, or by the Government as part of their pay, and I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw, at least, this part of the Bill which, speaking as an ex-service man, seems to me the worst part of a thoroughly bad Measure.

Mr. SNELL: I do not remember any time when the House of Commons has been more discourteously treated by the studied silence of hon. Members on the other side. This is supposed to be a debating chamber, where the pros and eons of difficult matters are put forward, and, from the clash of different points of view, we can get a true view of what is required. With the exception of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, we have had no defence of the raid which the Government are making on these particular Funds. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams), it is true, intervened and explained the reasons. There were, he said, times when it was discreet to speak, and there were times when it was discreet to be silent. Evidently, speaking on behalf of his party, this was the time when a discreet silence was required, the reason being that no defence could in reality be made of what the Government propose to do.
I ask the Committee for a minute or two to try to visualise what will be in the mind of the service man himself, with which, after all, we have to try to deal. How will it affect these men, not only in their pocket and in their health, but how will it appear to their mind? The soldier, the sailor, and the airman are not fools, by a long way. They have a very pungent and well-directed vocabulary, which might make some difference to this Debate, could we have the advantage of it. In any case, we are to-day in the position of having to consider what the effect upon them will really be. I have always understood that the Services were outside politics, and that, as far as possible, we should not bring them into our political warfare in any way. If we are not allowed to do it openly in the process of Debate, we need to be very careful not to intro duce politics into the Services by a side-wind, especially in a form which is going very materially to touch the prosperity and the sense of security which these men in the Services have. If the
Government are anxious, as recent events appear to show them to be, to prevent any dissention growing in the Army, their proper course is to withdraw this proposal, because there is nothing more likely to create dissention there than the proposal now before the Committee. The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) appeared to be distressed that we should apply the word "robbery" in this connection.

Sir J. SIMON: I am not distressed at all. I only think there are better arguments than using that expression.

Mr. SNELL: I do not want to be behind the right hon. and learned Gentleman in restraint., and, therefore, I want to say, that if it be not the open robbery with which we sometimes have to deal, it is, perhaps, dishonest appropriation, which is not very different in its meaning. I suggest that it is a very dangerous thing to create a precedent of this character. There may be Governments following this one, which will be distressed in finding money. They may look round to see where there are funds to tap, and use this as a precedent, which they might very legitimately regard as giving them what they want. What I feel about this proposal is that these Service men did their work for the community, they suffered bitterly, and in nearly every case, when a man came out of the War, he came out with a depressed vitality. He is more liable, probably, to a lower standard of health than those of us who did not have to serve in the trenches, and if there were anything which could be done with these executive reserves, it should have been to make some provision for the welfare of the Service men in other directions of life.
What happens, say, in regard to joint stock companies? Hon. and right hon. Members opposite may not know a great deal about the working of friendly societies, but they do know something about the working of joint stock companies. When you get a company that has done far better than it expected to do, what happens? It increases the dividends to the shareholders, and sometimes gives a bonus, or waters the capital, if the State is likely to buy the thing out at some future date. In any case, the shareholders get the benefit of the prosperity. But here we have Service
men, who are in a position of not being able to defend themselves, who have contributed these pennies and three halfpennies, and because the Fund has been prosperous, the Government come in to meet needs in other directions and literally put their hand into the pocket of the poor man. I would ask whether there are not other ways in which the Government might find the money they require. If they require £1,000,000 to make ends meet, there are, surely, more reputable ways of finding it than this way of raiding these poor men of their security in this respect. Of all the mean things that a Government could do, this seems to me to be the worst. Where poor

people have contributed, as these poor people did, their pennies and three halfpennies a week, under a bargain, as it were, with the Government and this House, such a fund ought to be a sacred thing. It is almost sacrilege to touch it, especially in a nation like ours, which has not exhausted the possibility of raising the money it requires in other ways.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: rose in his place, and claimed to move,"That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 141.

Division No. 126].
AYES.
[6.57 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Agg. Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsay, Gainsbro)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hume, Sir G. H.


Apsley, Lord
Davidson, J. (Hertfd. Hemel Hempst'd)
Hunt, Gerald B.


Ashley, U.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F, S.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davies, sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Balniel, Lord
Dawson, Sir Philip
Jacob A. E.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Drewe, C.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Eden, Captain Anthony
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Edmondson, Major A. J.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Edwards, John H (Accrington)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Bethel, A.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Elveden, Viscount
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Briggs, J. Harold
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Briscoe, Richard George
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fermoy, Lord
Loder, J. de V.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. 1.
Fielden, E. B.
Lord, Walter Greaves-


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Finburgh, S.
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Buckingham. Sir H.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Lynn, Sir Robert J.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Fraser, Captain Ian
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Bullock, Captain M.
Frece, Sir Walter de
McLean, Major A.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Burman, J. B.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. sir John
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Malone, Major P. B.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
God, Sir Park
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Margesson, Captain D.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Calne, Gordon Hall
Grotrian, H. Brent
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.


Campbell, E. T.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Merriman, F. B.


Cassels, J. O.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Chapman, Sir S.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Haslam, Henry C.
Murchison, C. K.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hawke, John Anthony
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Churchman. Sir Arthur C.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Clarry, Reginald George
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Neville, R. J.


Clayton, G. C.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Nuttall, Ellis


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D,
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pennefather, Sir John


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Penny, Frederick George


Cope, Major William
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Preston, William


Couper, J. B.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Price, Major C. W. M.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Radford, E. A.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Homan, C. W. J.
Raine, W.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ramsden, E.


Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Remnant, Sir James
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Watts, Dr. T.


Rentoul, G. S.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Wells, S. R.


Rice, Sir Frederick
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Ropner, Major L.
Strickland, Sir Gerald
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Rye, F. G.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Salmon, Major I.
Tasker, Major B. Inigo
Wise, Sir Fredric


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Templeton, W. P.
Withers, John James


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Womersley, W. J.


Sandeman, A. Stewart
Thomson, F. C (Aberdeen, South)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. sir W. Mitchell-
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Savery, S. S.
Tinne, J. A.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)


Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Shepperson, E, w.
Waddington, R.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Skelton, A. N.
Wallace, Captain D, E.



Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


Smithers, Waldron
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Major Hennessy and Captain




Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Sexton, James


Ammon, Charles George
Hardie, George D.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harney, E. A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Harris, Percy A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barnes, A.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barr, J.
Hayday, Arthur
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Batey, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Chants W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smillie, Robert


Bread, F. A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromfield, William
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromley, J.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Snell, Harry


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buchanan, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stamford, T. W.


Clowes, S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sutton, J. E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kelly, W. T.
Taylor, R. A


Connolly, M.
Kennedy, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kenyon, Barnet
Thurtle, E.


Dalton, Hugh
Kirkwood, D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lansbury, George
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lowth, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Dennison, R.
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Duckworth John
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dunnico, H.
Mackinder, W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacLaren, Andrew
Warne, G. H.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fenby, T. D.
Maxton, James
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Montague, Frederick
Westwood, J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Morris, R. H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gillett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
Murnin, H.
Wiggins, William Martin


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Greenall, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Pureed, A. A.
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Rees, Sir Beddos
Wright, W.


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Scrymgiour, E,
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scurr, John
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. T.




Henderson.


Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question put,

"That the sum of one million one hundred thousand pounds shall be transferred to the Exchequer from the Navy, Army, and Air Force Insurance Fund."—[Sir L. Worthington-Evans.]

The Committee divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 142.

Motion made, and. Question proposed,
That in the event of the constitution of an account to be called the Bankruptcy and Companies' Winding-up (Fees) Account':

(a) The Treasury shall be empowered in each financial year to pay into the Exchequer out of the moneys standing to the credit of that account a sum equal to the amount which in the last preceding financial year fell to be defrayed out of any Votes of Parliament, other than Votes for the Board of Trade, in respect of salaries and expenses under the Bankruptcy Act, 1914, or under the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, in relation to the winding-up of companies in England;
(b) There shall he paid out of the account into the Exchequer—

(i) as soon as may be after the passing of an Act giving effect to this
106
Resolution, an amount equal to the sums transferred to the said account from the accounts to which there have respectively been paid the bankruptcy investments dividends, the bankruptcy fees, the companies investments dividends, and the companies winding-up fees, less a sum of one hundred thousand pounds; and
(ii) thereafter, the amount standing to the credit of the said account on the thirty-first day of March in each financial year, less an amount equal to one-third of the aggregate amount issued out of the said account in that year for the purpose of meeting the charges in respect of salaries and expenses under the Bankruptcy Act, 1914, or under the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, in relation to the winding-up of companies in England." —[Sir Burton Chadwick.]

Mr. THOMAS: Surely this Resolution requires some explanation?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I am very glad of the opportunity of giving an explanation. I am sure the Committee will receive what I have to say with some relief when they find that this is a question of taking money which belongs to nobody at present and of giving it to somebody. It will be known to hon. Members that the Companies Liquidation Fees Account and the Bankruptcy Fees Account are kept separately, and at a later stage in the Economy Bill provision is made for the amalgamation of these two accounts under an account to be known as the "Bankruptcy and Companies' Winding-up (Fees) Account." At present there is a surplus in the Companies' Fees Account of approximately £450,000. This surplus has been gradually accumulating for many years, but under the Companies (Consolidation) Act the Treasury has no power to use the surplus in any way. In the Economy Bill provision is made to give the Treasury the power to pay the surplus over to the Exchequer. It is not proposed to pay over the whole of the surplus at present, but to retain of that £450,000 the sum of £100,000 as a reserve for capital expenditure and the cost of running these two Departments. There is a deficiency of £20,000 on the Bankruptcy Fees Account.
Paragraph (a) of this Resolution relates to the payment to the Exchequer from the Fees Account of the cost of the service of Departments other than the Board of Trade, such as the Office of Works, the Post Office, and the Stationery Office. Paragraph (bi) of the Resolution relates to payments to the Exchequer of the surplus of £450,000, less the £100,000 reserve of which I have spoken. Paragraph (bii) relates to the payment to the Exchequer of the balance standing to the Account in future years, less a sum equal to one-third of the annual expenses of the Companies and Bankruptcy Departments, which will be retained as working capital for the next year. I do not think I need trouble the Committee with a very much longer explanation than this.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Is this an annual surplus or is it simply an amount that has accumulated and which will be
available to the Treasury this year? Will there be an annual surplus?

Sir B. CHADWICK: There will be an annual surplus, but this £450,000 is a surplus which has accumulated over a number of years. The Resolution —and this is why I commend it to the Committee—deals with a sum of money which is available to nobody at the present moment, and it makes it possible by the Economy Bill to bring this sum into the hands of the Treasury.

Mr. WEBB: The hon. Member has explained this very complicated Resolution in a manner which, I am sure, will enable every Member of the House to understand it. I gather that there are two funds, the fund which arises in respect of bankruptcy fees and the fund which arises from fees payable in regard to the winding-up of companies. I gather, also, that there is a deficit on the Bankruptcy Fees Account and a surplus on the Companies' Fees Account. It appears as if the number of people who become bankrupt is growing progressively smaller, while the number of companies to be wound up is growing progressively larger. No provision has been made for meeting the position which at present exists on the winding-up of the bankruptcy proceedings and the surplus which at the same time is accruing from the very large number of joint stock companies which have to be wound up. The fees on those proceedings will yield a surplus. Consequently, the Treasury have to face a deficit on the Bankruptcy Account while there is a surplus on the Winding-up of Companies' Account. At least, that is what I understand from the hon. Gentleman's explanation to be the objects of this complicated Resolution and the complicated Clause which has emerged in the Bill.
In regard to these two accounts, what the Treasury has been losing on the swings it is now going to gain on the roundabouts. There will he a surplus of£450,000, and the Exchequer will allow £100,000 to be kept, leaving a sum of £350,000. What I do not understand is the statement that this £100,000, which is to be left in the amalgamated fund is to be left in order that it may be devoted to capital expenditure. I think we are entitled to ask what capital expenditure it is going to be devoted to.
The object of the scheme is, I suppose, to cover the expenses of the operations of the Government in bankruptcy or in the winding-up of companies. But I do not quite see what capital expenditure the Government can require to lay out unless they are going to pension off the officials of the Government Department or give them gratuities for loss of office, or something of that kind. The mere fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to turn into revenue a sum of £350,000 which has been in the nature of capital is perhaps only to be expected in the present stress of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I do think we are entitled to ask what capital expenditure this £100,000 is required for. If it is nobody's money why should the Income Tax payer have to bear the expense of the £100,000? Why does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer take the lot? I am not suggesting that that would be a wise thing to do, but it is just as well to be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb, and after the larger sum which we have been discussing this little ewe lamb of £450,000 is nothing to an omnivorous Chancellor of the Exchequer.
But what is the capital expenditure for which this £100,000 is required? Hitherto, I understand, there has been no capital expenditure in regard to either of these funds, and I think it is a little improper to incur capital expenditure on these, funds. The fees ought not to be diverted to any other purpose than that for which they were originally intended. If the fees are in excess of what is wanted and there is a surplus, surely it is not legitimate to divert that surplus to any other purpose than that of the maintenance of those officials for whose maintenance the fees were actually imposed.
I cannot quite understand the bearing of these two paragraphs. Paragraph (b, ii) seems to be something entirely different from paragraph (b, i). It looks like the appropriation year by year of the surplus of income over expenditure of that year. Does it not mean that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will obtain next year and the year after, and every year, the whole of the surplus of the preceding year less u third, which is magnanimously left in order that it may he possible to pay the salaries for April, May and June before
the fees for the current year have come in? As far as I can make out, the whole of the balance of receipts over the expenditure of each year is to be automatically appropriated to the Exchequer, minus one-third, which is to form the working capital. It is not one steal; it is a continuous annual steal. If I am not mistaken there is a continual appropriation year after year of the balance of the year's working of the combined account, less one-third, which is retained as working capital. It is not merely one appropriation Clause, but a telescoping into one of a series of appropriation Clauses to last indefinitely until, possibly, bankruptcy ceases to exist or joint stock companies cease to be wound up, or until we have a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is able to balance his Budget without the methods which the present Chancellor sees fit to pursue.
I ask for some explanation of paragraph (b, ii) because it seems to me as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is looking at this as an annual contribution. Year after year, he is going to take out of these fees something in aid of his wanton, luxurious, extravagant expenditure instead of meeting the deficit in the usual manner to which we have been accustomed by past Chancellors in this country. Some will say that does not come to much, but it shows to what straits the Chancellor of the Exchequer is reduced when he raids even such cigar ends as this.
There is a serious side to this matter. These fees are actually levied upon the creditors of the company or of the bankrupt. Whatever amount is available for the creditors and whatever dividends may be paid, are reduced by the exactions of the Government, so much so that it is practically impossible for a poor man to indulge in the luxury of a bankruptcy. Fees are demanded from him, and if he has no money he cannot enjoy the luxury of bankruptcy proceedings and having his debts wiped out so that he may be protected from his creditors. The whole of these fees represent a tax levied on the bankrupt estate or on the creditors of the company that is wound up. It is a tax that is not justified. It has so far been justified by the State performing a service in respect of the bankruptcy or winding-up, and the
State is then entitled to recoup itself for its expenses by fees which should be just enough to pay for these services.
There is a very great reason why the State should not make a profit out of this business. The State ought not to levy fees for a winding up or bankruptcy which are permanently in excess of the expense to which the State is put. There is no reason why, because this surplus has been piled up, fees should continue to he levied at a rate which is more than enough to pay the expenses of the State with a little turn to prevent the State being put to any loss. The Government have discovered that these fees have been normally more than is required to meet the expenditure, and they are nevertheless going to maintain these unnecessary fees and to provide that the profit of this mean business shall he transferred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I remember reading that when Henry Fielding was made Police Magistrate at Bow Street he said that he managed to make £300 or £400 a year out of it by the meanest of business. If the Government are going to make such a surplus, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is acting in what Henry Fielding denounced as the meanest of business. It is taxing the creditor who has already lost his money, and taxing the man in his time of difficulty with a tax which the Government is not morally entitled to levy, for it is in excess of the cost of its actual services.
It may be that I have misunderstood this document, and the lucid explanation of the hon. Gentleman who represents this Department, but, if I have not, I ask the Government whether they will not be content with looting the existing surplus. It is a happy accident which has placed this surplus at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I had discovered it myself when I was at the Board of Trade, and, but for the abhorred shears which cut short the thread of that Government, we might have used this surplus. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be guilty of the sin of converting this capital windfall- into annual revenue. Again, I ask seriously what capital expenditure there is that needs this reserve of £100,000? It does not seem to me that these fees were intended to provide for capital expenditure. These fees ought not to be continued at an
unnecessary high rate. I hope that the Government will explain how they justify the continuance of this taxation, and why the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot be content with raiding the surplus that now exists, and why the fees cannot then be reduced down to a level which is only just sufficient to meet the expenses.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I want to make a point which may be the same as that of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. If so, then, following the custom of fewer words on this side of the House about which hon. Members opposite have complained, I can put it into as many lines of the Official Report as he has put it into pages. I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to announce that these funds, which are created out of fees, are not intended to be funds which ever should have a surplus. The point is one of some little importance, because it has to do indirectly with the question of the control of this House over taxation. It is a very good thing when we have a surplus for the House to vote it to the National Exchequer, particularly under present circumstances when it is in some need. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer must understand that in future some of us will watch very carefully whether the fees charged in respect of some of these services are not too large, and, if so, we shall ask that the fees shall be reduced to such a sum as is not likely to produce a large surplus in future, because money obtained by overcharging for services rendered forms one of the most improper forms of taxation. As to the right hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb). I think he misunderstood the Parliamentary Secretary's words when he spoke about capital expenditure. If I am not mistaken, he said it would be used for working capital. It is a perfectly proper thing that there should he certain moneys kept in the Fund.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: Bankruptcy was at one time described as that state of affairs which exists when, a man being unable to pay his debts, his solicitor and accountant share the profits between them. Apparently, under this Resolution the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to come in and share with the solicitor and accountant. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the surplus which existed in one of these accounts at present was an abnormal one, and that he did not expect that
it would appear again. If that be the case, I should like to know the meaning of Clause 15 of the Economy Bill which provides for the taking yearly by the Treasury such surplus as they may have in the account and devoting it, not to the relief of taxation, but using it in aid of the salaries and expenses of the Board of Trade. If no surplus be expected, why insert this provision in the Bill? On the other hand, if there be a surplus expected, I suggest that the principle embodied in this Sub-section is a very bad one, because you are really imposing taxation without this House having an opportunity of saying how. it should be levied and the purpose for which it should be used. Moreover, the Company's Winding-up Department and the Bankruptcy Department are part of the administration of justice, and I hold very strongly that everybody should have justice in this country administered as cheaply as possible. It is not right that the taxpayers should be relieved at the expense of the fees received for the administration of justice if they are not actually required for the carrying out of the law. I notice that there is a balance of £450,000 in one Department and a deficit of. £20,000 in another. The Exchequer is leaving a large sum of £100,000 for what the Parliamentary Secretary called "capital expenditure." if by this he means what the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert.) said he meant, then I have no more to say upon that point.

Sir B. CHADWICK: With regard to the point which has just been raised, if I said "capital expenditure" I meant "working expenses." Obviously, it, is necessary to have a sum set, aside for working expenses. Just imagine the case of this Department in the process of winding up certain companies and the Official Receiver having to pay interim dividends to creditors. Of course, he must have a sum of money available for such a purpose as that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] I may be wrong in that, but, whether that be so or not, I do not think it is unreasonable that we should ask for a reserve fund for this purpose. With regard to what has been said about the one-third appropriation, it will be an appropriation annually. As for the reduction of fees, I do not think it can be said that the bankruptcy fees are too high.
With reference to the company fees fixed by the Board of Trade, they are considered to be very much lower than the fees of the private practising liquidator, and, if we were to reduce those fees very much, they might injure the practice and profession of the practising private interest, and that is a reason for not reducing them. The hon. Member for the Welsh University (Mr. E. Evans) said I had spoken about this surplus being abnormal, and that it would not recur again. I did not say that there would be a recurrence of the surplus, but I said there would be no recurrence of the £450,000 surplus which is available at the present time. I think I have now dealt with all the questions which have been raised, and I hope the Committee will agree to pass the Resolution.

Mr. HARRIS: I think one or two more explanations of this proposal are still required. I want to say a word or two about the phrase used by the Parliamentary Secretary, "working capital." That suggests the capital necessary to carry on a business. The hon. Member referred to the process of winding up certain companies, and the Official Receiver having to pay interim dividends to creditors. I want a little more explanation on that point, because this seems to me to be a new form of Socialism. It means that, if a company goes bankrupt, instead of waiting for the assets to appear, the Government are going to use the surplus fees to pay the dividends in anticipation of possible assets, and that is a very remarkable doctrine. That is what hon. Members gathered from the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary, but I think we should have some elucidation of this point from the Solicitor-General.
I am also very much concerned about the hon. Member's great anxiety to protect the interests of private enterprise and the private liquidator. He seems satisfied that a case had been made out for a reduction of fees, and yet he said that although it might be in the public interest to reduce the fees he could not do so, because it might interfere with the private industry of the liquidator. As a matter of fact, we have a precedent with regard to a reduction of fees, and it is to be found in the case of the Land Registry, which was able to reduce its fees because of the surplus that accrued from the existing scale of fees
Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted; and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. HARRIS: In the case of the land registry they were able, with the surplus, not only to reduce the fees, but also to wipe out the capital cost of the building. Therefore, that is a utilisation of a surplus which can be justified, but the proposals put forward on this occasion are thoroughly unsound, and you cannot use a surplus in order to pay interim dividends to creditors.

Sir B. CHADWICK: I was wrong about that.

Mr. HARRIS: Then my intervention in this Debate has served a useful purpose, for I have obtained an admission that the Parliamentary Secretary was wrong, and I hope other Ministers will follow the hon. Gentleman's example in admitting it.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — ECONOMY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 31st March.]

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Amendment of s. 83 of principal Act.)

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, to leave out from the word "committees" to the word "a" in line 28.
8.0 P.M.
I think the Committee will have already appreciated that, although Clause 1 of this Bill is a very important one. Clause 2 is important also. It will he necessary, in order to explain the meaning of this Amendment, to explain also the attitude of those of us who sit on this side of the House towards what is fundamental in Clause 2. The Committee will understand, of course, that Clause 2 deals with the administration of medical benefit under the National Health Insurance scheme; and the purpose of my Amendment is to challenge the power of the Minister of Health in connection with that administration.
I ought to preface my remarks, however, by saying that we are a little astonished that the Government have brought forward Clause 2 of this Bill at all, especially in view of the recommendations in the Report of the Royal Commission, which deals with this very issue. The Report of the Royal Commission, for instance, on the question of insurance Committees—a subject which is involved in Clause 2—is definitely in favour of the abolition of those Committees. It is not for me at this stage to give an opinion on the advisability or otherwise of the retention of insurance committees, but I should have thought that the Government, in dealing with this subject of medical benefit, would have waited until they were ready to legislate on what is really a very important issue indeed, namely, that of the insurance committees of this country. Those Committees are composed of thousands of people sitting in all the large towns and counties throughout the country, dealing with the administration of medical benefit locally. I ought to say, in passing, that the Minister appears to me to be seeking new and still greater powers under this Measure. That is the main reason why I am moving the Amendment.
I do not know whether our Scottish friends have appreciated the position of Scotland under this Clause, and I would, therefore, refer them to a few words in one of the White Papers, namely, the Memorandum explaining the Clauses of the Bill, and would direct their attention to what might transpire with respect to the insured population of Scotland under the Clause. The Memorandum says:
Special provision is made to meet Scottish conditions, without, however, altering the maximum amount to be devoted to the cost of medical benefit.
It will be very interesting, and I feel sure that the Scottish Members of the House will be very glad, to learn what are the special conditions that appertain to Scotland which require special treatment in this connection. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Clause at the moment will tell us why it is that Scotland is singled out for special treatment under this Clause. I do not know where Wales stands with respect to this subject. I suppose that it goes in with England as usual. At any rate, that is a point—

The CHAIRMAN: As I read it, the Amendment of the hon. Member only deals with the administrative expenses of the Minister; it has nothing to do with the differential treatment.

Mr. DAVIES: It is necessary now that I should say a word or two as to the powers of the Minister in respect of medical benefit. The Minister in charge, when the National Health Insurance Act came into operation, had undoubtedly a very difficult task to per form in dealing with the question of medical benefit. It. will be remembered, by those who have taken any interest at all in the subject, that in 1911 the Minister was confronted with what was almost a strike of the medical profession in this country. The panel doctors demanded not the 4s. that was suggested to them but the sum of 7s. 3d. as a fee for attendance upon each of the insured population of this country, and they got that sum. The powers of the Minister ever since then have been, if I may say so, wielded with very little reference to the approved societies. They, after all, are the persons who are called upon to pay the moneys included in this Clause, and moneys which have always been paid in panel fees and for drugs, mileage and all the other expenses connected with medical benefit.
We challenge the Minister's power in this connection, because we believe that he ought to consult the approved societies more than he has already done. In consulting them as to the cost of medical benefit, some heed should be paid to the attitude taken by them in connection with agreements with the doctors. The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the Minister makes agreements, on behalf of all the insured population of this country, with thousands of general practitioners who are acting as panel doctors; and we are not satisfied that he has made the best bargain with them, or that he will do so in the future. I ought to add that a great deal of criticism is made, not only as to the attitude of the Minister in this connection, but as to the medical profession themselves who are giving treatment to insured persons under the scheme. For my own part, I must say that On the whole I think the panel doctors have done their work admirably; but I think, too, that they have been handsomely paid for their tasks. I do not think the Minister has
been at all stingy with them. So far as I understand the figures, they were paid, at the commencement of the scheme, the sum of 7s. 3d. per insured person. At the end of 1921 that sum had gone up to 11s In 1922 it came down to 9s. 6d. by arbitration, and, after further negotiations with the doctors, it fell to 9s. in 1924 and 1925, and remains at that figure now. These are some of the powers which the Minister possesses—to negotiate the sum of money that is to be paid from approved societies' funds to the doctors for services rendered to the insured population. A difficulty then arises—

The CHAIRMAN: I do not wish to stop the hon. Member, but I do not quite follow how he works in his argument with this Amendment. According to Clause 2 of the Bill, there may, out of the funds out of which benefits are payable, be applied for the purpose. of meeting the cost of medical benefit, including, among other things, any expenses incurred by the Minister in connection with the administration of benefits, a certain sum of money. The amount paid to the medical profession would, however, appear to be alien to this Amendment. I will not say that it would be out of order on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but the Amendment is merely one not to make the expenses of the Minister a charge upon the approved societies' funds.

Mr. DAVIES: I will, of course, endeavour to keep within your ruling, but I would respectfully point out that one of the objects of my Amendment is to challenge the Minister's power to make agreements with doctors, because the panel doctors provide medical benefit under this Clause. and the National Health Insurance Acts. I will, however, try to confine myself to the real point at issue. What are the other services that the Minister renders in connection with the National Health Insurance scheme? He is, in effect, entitled to control the business of the approved societies; he is entitled to endorse schemes of additional benefits which they may put into operation, and he is entitled also to veto a number of proposals that the approved societies might submit to him from. time to time. He might say that additional benefit schemes proposed by approved societies are too limited or too generous. Consequently,
we ask the Committee to take out of this Clause the power that rests with the Minister to veto these proposals of approved societies.

Sir K. WOOD rose —

The CHAIRMAN: I was just going to raise that point. I understand the effect of this Amendment to be that the expenses of the Minister should not be charged to the approved societies' funds, and I presume, therefore, that there would have to be a sum taken for them in Committee of Supply. Certainly, however, if this Amendment were carried, the powers of the Minister would remain the same as before; the only difference would be that his expenses would not be taken from the approved societies' funds, and, presumably, he would have to come to Parliament for them.

Mr. DAVIES: Reducing the argument within the limits of your ruling, I think I am entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is not possible to put the whole charge for the expenses of administration in respect of the tasks performed by the Minister upon the Exchequer. This Clause throws upon the approved societies, for the first time, all the expenses of medical benefit.

Sir K. WOOD indicated dissent.

Mr. DAVIES: Yes. For the first time the total charges for medical benefit will now fall upon the approved soceities' funds. During the years 1924–25, a sum of money was available in what is called the Unclaimed Stamps Account, and it was from those moneys, although they actually belonged to the approved societies in law, that the difference was made up. The argument that I desire to put to the Committee is that the Minister is not entitled to throw upon the funds of the approved societies his own charges for administration. Those charges have been increased by Clause 1; and I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the alteration in the State grant covering all benefits provided by Clause 1 applies also to medical benefit, that is to say, the change from two ninths to the new figure. I know that it applies to cash and additional benefits; but I would like the hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee
whether the change in the rate of the State grant applies also to medical benefit.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that that has anything to do with the expenses of administration. As I understand it, the only point here is whether the expenses of administration shall or shall not be thrown on the approved societies' funds.

Mr. DAVIES: I understand—I am open to correction—that even the cost of administration of benefits by the Minister of Health on behalf of the societies will be subject to the State grant. At any rate, the administration costs of approved societies are subject to a State grant, and are subject to the changes about to be made by Clauses 1 and 2. Anyhow, I think we are entitled to press this Amendment, because the Minister has several other administrative tasks to perform which I have not mentioned. The Government up to now have not met us in any way whatsoever in this Bill.
I notice that the Chancellor of the Exchequer came in a few moments ago when we were dealing with bankruptcy cases. I do not know whether that was ominous or otherwise; but I wish he had remained in order that we might put this other argument to him. We are not asking for very much by this Amendment. I do not know exactly what the cost would be: but I repeat that it is not fair to throw on to the funds of approved societies the whole cost of administration by the Minister himself. The Minister is entitled to appoint regional medical officers. When a panel patient makes a claim on the funds of an approved society, the society may not be satisfied that the claim is genuine. The Minister has set up what is called a regional medical officer's scheme; and the society and the insured person are entitled therefore, to make an appeal to the regional medical officer who is appointed solely by the Minister c f Health. As the Minister has set up the scheme of regional medical officers without consultation with the approved societies, the cost of administering that part of the business ought surely to fall upon the Minister himself and not on the funds of the approved societies. The Minister has still several other tasks to perform apart from that. He com-
municates with the approved societies; he scrutinises their rules and he determines the appointment of inspectorial staffs. I do not think it is fair, therefore, that approved societies should be saddled with the cost of appointments to the Civil Service staff. They are a very fine body of men and women who in the past have audited the accounts and inspected the business of approved societies. I have no complaint at all to make against the staff of the Ministry of Health who are transacting the detailed business at the centre under the national health insurance scheme. If the Minister appoints all these men and women as inspectors the approved societies should not be charged with the cost especially when he makes the appointments without reference to them.
I should like to know what amount, if any, is charged to the funds of approved societies in respect of the salary of the Minister himself. It would be very interesting to know whether these few words, just covered up very nicely in Clause 2, mean that a part of his salary comes out of those funds; whether part of it really comes from the coppers of the 15,000,000 insured population. We are entitled to ask that he shall be here to-night to answer some of these questions. We know that his heart is not in this business at all. The power behind the throne is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In common parlance, he is the dark horse; and he, too, ought to be here to answer some of these very pertinent questions. Another duty that devolves upon the Minister of Health is the control of the Central Index Register. The hon. Gentleman is quite familiar with all these matters, and I feel sure he will be able to answer them, except, of course, that he cannot possibly give me the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is a puzzle to everyone. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Government can agree to this Amendment, because, after all, it is a very small favour indeed. The Government is taking several millions from the funds of approved societies by Clause 1.
The hon. Gentleman went. to the Press the other day or the Press came to him for information, and there was a very long article in all the newspapers of the country over his
name, making excuses as to why the Government was proceeding at all with this Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: Those would not be expenses incurred by the Minister in the administration of benefits.

Mr. DAVIES: I was going to ask whether in fact any money is going to be taken under this Clause to meet the expenses of that interview.

The CHAIRMAN: Any such moneys devoted to propaganda would be disallowed.

Mr. DAVIES: Now I come to what, after all, is a very serious matter indeed. The Minister, as stated, has certain duties to perform on behalf of approved societies; and we claim that the charges now proposed to be included in this Clause are out of all proportion to the tasks he has to perform. After all, when the Government is reducing the State Grant towards the funds of approved societies, it ought also to reduce its powers pro rata over the administration of the societies. A few lines lower down in the Clause we have the amount stipulated which is to be taken for this purpose; and we protest because the societies could themselves perform these infinitesimal tasks very much cheaper. For instance, the appointment of regional medical officers might be done by the consultative council of the Ministry of Health. I understand that part of the cost of the meetings and the expenses of the consultative council may come within this Clause. I do not know whether it would not be right at this moment to ask, under the four heads I am going to mention, what is the probable cost of each, to the Minister.
There is the case of the regional medical officers. How many regional medical officers are there to be provided for? I know some charges are set against the: benefit fund account of the approved societies on this score; and it would be very interesting to know what is the proposed division of expenses as between the Minister and the regional medical officers. Then it quite proper to ask whether it is intended to increase the inspectorial staff. Can the Minister tell us how many men and women inspectors are employed under his control, because some of the charges for appointing and controlling these staffs may fall within this
Clause and within the limit of the words to which I refer. I should like to ask him, too, what proportion of the cost will go towards keeping what is known as the central index register. I understand that part of the money included in this Clause, and within the limits of these words, is to be spent on the Register. I have no fault whatever to find with the adoption of that Register. I think it is a very great improvement indeed in the administration of health insurance. The hon. Gentleman has a very alert mind. I feel sure that he can follow all these points in very minute detail. I wonder whether he can give information on my fourth point. I have mentioned three. What staff is there in the Ministry of Health dealing with correspondence as between the Ministry and the approved societies? If we can get to know what is the division in the cost on these four points we shall be very much enlightened indeed on the problem with which I have been dealing.
We have made some very useful suggestions, which have all been turned down. This is an Amendment which would do credit even to this Tory Government. I do not know whether they desire much credit. They have not got much now. They never had very much, and it has nearly all disappeared by this time. I am very hopeful that this small Amendment, which will cost very little, indeed, will be accepted by the Government.

Sir K. WOOD: I am very glad to do my best to reply to the rather detailed questions the hon. Member has put to me. I think his Amendment will hardly meet with the support he anticipates. He is challenging the insertion in Clause 2 of that part of the expenses incurred by the Minister in connection with the administration of certain benefits. The principles contained in Clause 2 are carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commission.

Mr. DAVIES: That was on the assumption that Clause 1 did not become law.

Sir K. WOOD: There was no distinction, at any rate in my mind, to be drawn from the fact that some alteration might be made in the scheme in Clause 1. The Commission, I think, unanimously
came to the conclusion that as far as the cost of medical benefit was concerned it should now be carried by the funds of the societies under the National Insurance Act.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now explaining general principles.

Sir K. WOOD: I only want to make one further observation on that point, and that is, that the very part which the hon. Member seeks to omit from the Bill is one of the recommendations which was unanimously recommended by the Royal Commission. Secondly, the whole of this Clause, including the part which the hon. Member seeks to omit, has received the support of the Consultative Council. The hon. Member asked me whether anyone had been consulted on this matter. Hon. Members may remember that before we rose for the Easter Recess a good many questions were put about consultation with the Consultative Council. As far as this part of the Bill is concerned, as the hon. Member knows, the Consultative Council were consulted, and they agreed that this should be inserted, including the portion which the hon. Member now seeks to omit.

Mr. MACKINDER: Was that before they knew they were going to be robbed?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The hon. Gentleman must be fair. Is it not a fact that when they decided in favour of Clause 2, it was contingent upon Clause 1 being omitted from the Bill?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder) has just spoken about robbery. I would remind him that both proposals were considered carefully by the Consultative Council, and they rejected one and accepted the other. The proposals we are discussing to-night, including the part which the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) seeks to omit, have the concurrence of the Consultative Council, They had the whole of the facts before them, and they decided as I have stated.

Mr. MACKINDER: Was not one contingent upon the other? Surely, if they accepted the principle of paying extra cost to the doctors, it was on the distinct understanding that their objection to Clause 1 was upheld.

Sir K. WOOD: That is not correct. Both proposals were considered. They knew what was proposed, and they agreed to the proposals contained in Clause 2, but not to the proposals in Clause 1. The whole of the proposals we are discussing to-night, including the part now proposed to be omitted, received the support of the Consultative Council. The hon. Member proposes to withdraw from the Clause the expenses of administration which are to he incurred by the Minister of Health in two important particulars. The first is the cost of the regional medical officer service. That service is very much valued by the approved societies. The hon. Member made a suggestion to-night which I have not heard before, and which certainly did not receive the approval of any large body of societies up and down the country, that these regional medical officers should be appointed by the Consultative Council. That is an entirely erroneous view of the functions of the Consultative Council. The Consultative Council, as he well knows, is simply for the purpose of being consulted on matters which arise from time, to time in connection with the administration of National Insurance.

Mr. SNELL: After decisions have been arrived at.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member must not say that. The Minister of Health consulted them, and they agreed with the proposal which is being made to-night. The Consultative Council have no executive powers, and I do not think they would desire to have the appointments of the regional medical officers in their hands. As far as I know, the approved societies are very glad that the appointment of the regional medical officers rests with what I may call the higher executive authority.

The CHAIRMAN: That raises the question of changing the law. The only question before us is by whom and out of what fund the expenses of administration shall be paid.

Sir K. WOOD: The only thing that I can say then in answer to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment is that, obviously, as the Minister' of Health has to appoint the regional medical officers it follows as a fair and legitimate thing that the expenses must be paid as set out in the terms of the Bill. It would be
most improper and unfair to say that though the Minister of Health must appoint these medical officers he should not receive the cost of administration. The next question is the cost of the central index register. That register has to be set up by and administered by thee Minister of Health, and I am certain that few Members of the Committee would support the view that although the Minister of Health has to set up this index register and to administer it that he should not receive the expenses in connection with it. The appointment of the regional medical officers and the setting up of the central index register are functions which have to be performed by the Minister of Health and it follows as the logical and proper consequence that the cost of administration in both cases must be paid. I would like hon. Members opposite to realise that in both these matters the approved societies are wholly in agreement with the suggestions contained in the Bill.

Mr. LANSBURY: What are you going to save by this?

Sir K. WOOD: I am not permitted to reply to that general question

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. Is it not possible to find out on this Amendment how much is being saved by the Treasury by what is remaining in the Bill

The CHAIRMAN: That would be in order.

Sir K. WOOD: I gladly answer that question. The cost as far as the regional medical officers is concerned is 1¾d. per member per annum, and the cost of the central index register is ¾d. per member per annum. No part of the cost of the inspectorate or audit is charged, nor is the Minister's salary. None of that is charged against the societies. As the Debate has been somewhat limited, I have not gone into the matter as fully as the hon. Member would have desired, but I must say that it is no new thing to ask the societies to pay for these services. They have been doing so since 1922, in accordance with the provisions in the Act of that year and in accordance with the Cost of Medical Benefit Act, 1924. There is no reason for believing that the societies are not perfectly willing to continue to pay
these charges. The first objection that I have heard in this connection has been the speech made by the hon. Member for Westhoughton to-night and the Amendment he has moved. In these circumstances, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment, believing that it does not express the desire of any of the approved societies. They have been perfectly willing to pay these amounts since the year I have mentioned, and no intelligence has reached me that any of them has any objection to the payments being continued. They realise that good value has been received for the services which are rendered, and that in very many respects the administration of National Health Insurance has been rendered more efficient and the work of the approved societies rendered more easy by both the provisions affected by the Amendment.

Mr. SPENCER: May I put a question to the hon. Member? Will the words in the Bill carry any fresh obligation upon the societies; and if so, how much?

Sir K. WOOD: I stated a moment or two ago that the particular charges which the hon. Member seeks to eliminate by the Amendment have been borne by the societies since 1922. They are not fresh matters. The cost of regional medical officers and the central index register has been borne by the societies since 1922, and when that arrangement was made it was largely at the request of the societies. They considered that the regional medical officers should be appointed by the Minister.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Are we to understand that these are the only expenses?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Does the hon. Member really contend that all the expenses of the Minister in this connection will be in respect of the regional medical officers and the central index register only?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, I have given the hon. Member the particulars. The payment authorised in respect of the particular matters which he is raising to-night is 3d. I know he wanted to raise a much larger question, but the rules of Order prevent it. But these two
matters, that is the cost of the central index register and the regional medical officers, are those raised by this Amendment. They are not new matters at all, and so far as the societies are concerned the cost has been borne by them since 1922.

Mr. SCURR: Do I understand that these expenses are borne by the societies at the present time? If that is so, what is the reason for the inclusion of the words in the Bill?

Sir K. WOOD: The reason is that for the first time we are asking that the whole cost of medical benefit, which includes these two services, shall be borne by the funds of the societies to a sum not exceeding 13s. per member per year; and that figure of 13s. includes the cost of the central index register and the regional medical officers.

Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. Gentleman has been at great pains this evening to tell us that the Consultative Committee has approved this particular proposal. If what he has told us be true, then the Consultative Committee did not need to approve or disapprove of this proposal, because it is already in operation.

Sir K. WOOD: I meant that the Consultative Committee approved the proposal that the whole cost of medical benefit should be thrown on the funds of the societies to a sum not exceeding 13s. per member per year.

Mr. LANSBURY: Quite so, but when the Bill was before the Consultative Committee, they were asked to express their opinion of the Measure as it stood, and it is natural to conclude that when they gave their opinion against Clause 1 and approved of Clause 2, that if the Government took their advice in the one case, they would also take the Committee's advice in the other. I should like to know what the Consultative Committee think of the Government taking their advice in respect of Clause 2 and rejecting it in respect of Clause 1. I do not think it is quite playing the game with the Consultative Committee for the hon. Gentleman to pride himself on the fact that he is following their advice in putting forward this Clause, when only the other night he was at great pains to argue exactly the other way. It must be the legal training he has gone through
recently. He is getting an adept at arguing either way. It is no use saying that the societies are already paying for the services; that is a perfectly fallacious argument. When they agreed to this arrangement, they were not being plundered to the extent of £2,800,000 a year. An entirely new set of conditions has arisen, and as by Clause 1 you are plundering and robbing the insurance societies, it is only perfectly natural we should want to relieve them of every expense we can. This is just as mean and despicable a piece of business as anything that has gone before. You are really making the societies pay for something for which the Department itself should pay, and for which, under normal circumstances, the Department, I should have thought, would have been very willing to pay. The fact that it is only a very small amount—

Mr. WALLHEAD: £156,000.

Mr. LANSBURY: An hon. Member who is more agile with figures than I am seems to have worked it, out, and apparently it conies to £156,000. That is more than I thought it was. But the point I want to urge is that the whole of the argument of the hon. Member is based on the assumption that the conditions are now the same as they were in 1922, and it is because the conditions are, entirely changed that I think we ought to insert the Amendment. This is just another example of the policy of the Government in regard to friendly societies and trade unions, and other institutions carrying on insurance work. Wherever it is possible the burdens are being shifted on to the shoulders of those who are least able to bear them. This £150,000 will relieve to that extent the people who pay Income Tax, and so on. It will lessen the amount of money that will be available in the way of surplus for further benefits and for extending generally the benefits of the Insurance Act. I am astonished at the men in this House who talk about the honour of ex-service men and about the great things that ex-soldiers have done. This is a proposal to rob ex-service men and their dependants who are contributors, of whatever is the amount that this will cost—it robs them of that amount of benefit per year.
It is a sort of psychology that baffles me altogether. I cannot understand the mentality of men who stand up in this House to plead for the ex-service man and then allow a proposition of this kind to pass. These discussions prove the utter falsity and cant and nonsense and humbug in all the protestations of love and admiration for ex-service men. Here a paltry and mean sum is to be taken from the Health Insurance Fund, and from men who only a year or two ago hon. Members opposite were flattering and describing as heroes. If hon. Members opposite are not ashamed, I personally am ashamed to be in an assembly where men allow party interests and the wiles of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to induce assent to such a mean and despicable thing as is done by this Clause.

Mr. SCURR: I will not pursue the point of the last speaker, that the Government are trying to get the best out of both worlds. They had first of all a Consultative Committee and they asked for its advice. The whole Bill is laid before it, and when that Committee selects one portion and says: "We are prepared to accept a certain proposal if another proposal is dropped," the Government insert the condemned proposal and then comes along and claims that the Consultative Committee had recommended the other proposal. It is useless for hon. Members opposite to try to get away from that particular point. This is a breach of faith, in every sense of the word. There is a very important constitutional point raised by the insertion of the words which the Amendment would omit—
any expenses incurred by the Minister in connection with the administration of benefits.
It is a great constitutional principle in this country that when expenditure is incurred by a Minister it should be incurred only by the authority of Parliament. When expense is incurred by the authority of Parliament, Parliament is able to criticise the Minister, to inquire how he is administering, and either to agree or disagree with him on the matter. Here these expenses are thrown on to a particular Fund in which there are the contributions voted by the State and other contributions paid by the insured person, and over these contributions Parliament has no control. The sum which
goes into the Fund is dependent on the number of subscribers to the Fund, and the administration is left at the sweet will of the Minister without our being able to exercise our function of criticising. It is a very serious proposition and one that ought to be answered by the Law Officer of the Crown. To deal with a point of this kind a Law Officer ought to be present.

Mr. THOMAS: I was not aware that my hon. Friend was going to raise this constitutional question. I intended to raise it at a later stage. Now that it is raised, we are entitled to put it very clearly to the Government. On the legal point as to the constitutional position of a Minister under this Clause, with the greatest respect, we cannot accept the judgment of the Parliamentary Secretary. The constitution of the country provides and pays Law Officers to answer purely legal points. They are not only the Officers of the Government but the Officers of this House. Therefore, I feel I must move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," because of the inability of the Government or of any representative of the Government to answer the legal point that has been raised.

The CHAIRMAN: The Motion cannot be accepted.

Mr. THURTLE: I would not have intervened had it not been for the extraordinary defence used by the Parliamentary Secretary in seeking to justify this Clause. Being unable to meet the logic of my hon. Friend the Member for West Houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) he fell back upon a Royal Commission. He said that the proposals which we seek to cut out of the Clause were recommended by the Royal Commission. That raises a very interesting point. Are we going to say that the recommendation of a Royal Commission must be accepted without question? We know the old saying that the King can do no wrong. Are we going to say that a Royal Commission can never recommend anything which can be rejected? We ought to have from the Government a statement as to their attitude towards the recommendation of Royal Commissions, since they have used that argument.

The CHAIRMAN: Because a Royal Commission has recommended something, and the Government support it, I do not think the hon. Member can argue as to the power of Royal Commissions in general.

Mr. THOMAS: That raises another question. When we debated the previous Clause we urged that the matter should be adjourned until the House had had an opportunity of considering the recommendations of a Royal Commission —the same as that with which we are dealing—which did not then make a recommendation that the Government had put into the Bill. The Minister, on the Clause with which we are now dealing, justifies the Government's action on the ground that it carries out the recommendation of the Royal Commission. My hon. Friend is drawing attention to that fact, and is surely in order not only in drawing attention to it, but in reminding the Committee that the House of Commons never had an opportunity of discussing the recommendation which is now put forward, and never had an opportunity of discussing the Report itself. In the absence of any such discussion by the House of Commons, I submit that my hon. Friend is entitled to advance the considerations which he was putting before the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN: If I were to accept the right hon. Gentleman's theory, I could conceive of almost anything being brought into a discussion of this kind. It is perfectly lawful to argue that it does not follow from the fact that a Royal Commission has recommended a certain thing that that thing is right, but when it is merely stated that a Royal Commission has recommended something, if it is to be said that an argument can be raised regarding Royal Commissions in general, then that seems to me an extravagant proposition, and one which would make all rules of order inoperative.

Mr. THOMAS: Perhaps the extravagance of the proposition is only measured by the meanness of this Bill. Our difficulty is in bringing to the attention of the Committee the remarkable situation concerning this Royal Commission. I agree at once, however, that it would not be in order to discuss all Royal Commissions in general, but my
hon. Friend was rather directing attention to the recommendation of a particular Royal Commission.

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member merely intended to say that because a Royal Commission accepted a proposal, the proposal was not necessarily right that is perfectly in order, but so far as I could follow his argument he was going on to deal with Royal Commissions in general.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On the point of Order. As far as I could follow the Parliamentary Secretary his reasoning was that the Commission recommended this alteration and therefore the alteration was bound to be right. He argued that the Commission must be right because they had the evidence. The hon. Member surely is at liberty to argue that because the Commission heard the evidence it did not necessarily follow that we ought to take their view.

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had pursued the argument that because the Royal Commission recommended the alteration therefore it must be right, I should have stopped him.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But that was his argument.

Mr. THURTLE: The point I was seeking to make was that when the hon. Gentleman said the fact that the Royal Commission had made a recommendation was a good and sufficient reason why we should accept it, he seemed to assume that that was a general doctrine acceptable to the House of Commons. I wished to examine the history of the House of Commons in the past to discover whether that doctrine had been accepted as sound or not, and I proposed to recall to the memory of hon. Members the recommendations of one or two previous Royal Commissions.

9.0 P.M.

The CHAIRMAN: That is where the hon. Member goes wrong. Had the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill made the startling proposition that whatever a Royal Commission said was right, I should have intervened.

THURTLE: In that case there is no need to prolong my remarks, but I trust what I have said will serve to
bring out in a strong light, the absurdity of the argument used by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and that will be one other additional reason why the Committee should accept the Amendment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I intervene for the first time on this Bill, because I happen to be actively interested in approved societies and I have had something to do in an indirect way in connection with the work of approved societies on the trade union side. I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary's statement that the Consultative Committee accepted this proposal. The Consultative Committee had before them the whole Bill, and they were charged with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) is often charged with, namely, trying to make the best of what appeared to be inevitable. The approved societies recognised that the Government were intent on forcing through certain things, and, therefore, the Consultative Committee set out to modify the effects of the Government's decision as much as they could. The Consultative Committee did agree to this change, but they thought that having agreed to it, the Government would drop Clause 1. I think I can say for this party that if the Government promised to reconsider Clause 1 on Report stage, we would consider a compromise. We take up exactly the same position as the Consultative Committee. As a party we are not prepared to say that a certain thing is law and cannot be compromised. The mere fact that we have as our Leader here the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby showed that we can compromise. But it is not fair to say that the Consultative Committee agreed to this alteration unconditionally. They only agreed as a concession in return for an equally conciliatory spirit on the part of the Government in regard to Clause 1
The hon. Gentleman also said that the approved societies had already carried this burden since 1924, but the fact that they have done so, does not prove the burden is not one which ought to be carried by the State. It only shows that the societies have carried during that time a burden which they were never entitled to carry and never meant to carry. We are also told that a sum of £150,000 per annum is what the Govern-
ment intend to save on this matter. Somebody must be losing that sum. The Government admit that they are pressed for time in connection with this Bill. If this proposal means nothing, if as we are told there is nothing in it, and if they are pressed for time, why do they insist upon it? There is something in it. There is a saving to the Government of £150,000, and the Government have sunk so low that they are actually going to take paltry threepences from the approved societies to the extent of £150,000. As regards what the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) said regarding control of expenditure, nominally, at least, the House of Commons has hitherto retained control over Ministers in connection with spending Departments. Certain days are allotted during the Session known as Supply days, and the Opposition can pick and choose subjects for discussion on those days, but I do not see any method other than by questions once a week whereby this House can retain control of spending in connection with this matter.

Sir K. WOOD: I may answer that point now. The Clause says
not exceeding thirteen shillings per year in respect of each of the total number …. of the persons who are entitled etc.
Therefore, the hon. Member may rely on it that the sum of 13s. will not be exceeded.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I agree, and I knew about the 13s., but the point is that, although we come and say to the Government: "In connection with the Admiralty work, we have granted you £30,000,000, and we know you cannot exceed that without coming to us again for power," we still supervise how they spend the £30,000,000, but I want to know what power we have to exercise over the spending of this 13s. How is this House to control that?

Sir K. WOOD: It can be raised at any time on the Estimates.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have tried to find out as best I can, and I speak subject to correction, not having the Parliamentary knowledge of the hon. Gentleman, but I think it would be very difficult to get even the Ministry of Health Vote debated, and in any case, there is this further point to be raised, that on Supply days so little can be raised in connection with these
matters. On the Ministry of Health Vote, housing and the Poor Law are the two outstanding subjects each time, and they practically crowd other matters out. Here are the approved societies to have certain expenditure thrown on them without any body controlling the Minister in his spending of that money up to the 13s. If we had some body in this House which could control it, it would not be so bad. I would like the Under-Secretary to withdraw this proposal and let us, if we cannot have a big concession, have a small concession. During the passage of the Widows' and Orphans' Pension Bill, both the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary at times made concessions, and during almost every Bill some concession is made. We tried it on Clause 1 of this Bill, and we tried it earlier to-day, but on both occasions we failed. Now the hon. Gentleman says, with a wave of the hand, that this is a comparatively minor point. Well, if it is so minor, why not concede it, at least to show that he has still the traditional spirit of conciliation that Parliaments are supposed to have, and thus allowing the approved societies to retain the £150,000 which they will have to spend if this Bill becomes an Act?

Mr. HARNEY: I am at a loss to understand the extent of this Clause. The Clause seems to say that three items of expenditure, namely, medical benefit, the administration expenses of the insurance committees, and certain expenses paid by the Government, together not to exceed 13s. per man, shall henceforth be paid direct out of the benefit. I may be wrong, because I do not pretend to be an expert on this matter, but am I right in saying this, that originally 9s. 6d. was the statutory amount to be paid as medical benefit, that there was 6d. additional for administration expenses, that a few years ago the medical benefit was raised to 12s. 6d., that the 2s. 6d. additional had to come from somewhere, and that the source hit upon by the Government was this? There was, among the many funds that have grown out of this insurance system, one which, I think, was called the Sale of Stamps Fund. That was a Fund fed by three sources, namely, unclaimed stamps—

The CHAIRMAN: I would point out that we are now dealing with the administration expenses of the Minister.

Mr. HARNEY: I was trying to get down to finding out where was the economy, and I think, Mr. Hope, I am realty in order. The additional 2s. 6d. they got out of this specific Fund. Up to this moment, as I understand it, the additional 2s. 6d. medical benefit and the expenses that the insurance committees were put to were both paid out of this Fund. What is proposed in this Bill is that they should no longer be paid out of this Fund but direct out of the benefit. If that is so, it is as broad as it is long, because if you take more out of the benefit and less out of this Fund, which ultimately finds its way into the Central Fund, you do no harm, but I think this is intended to cloak something, and I want a very specific answer.
It occurs to me that what it is intended to cloak is this: It says "all expenses incurred by the Minister in connection with the administration of benefits." Has that up to this moment been paid other than from the Exchequer? Up to this moment has the amount that is covered by these words, however it arises, come from arty other source than the Exchequer? If so, and if by this Bill it is intended to effect the economy by saving the Exchequer and burdening the approved societies, then we know where we are, but we want to have it made clear, and if that is so, as I shrewdly suspect it is, upon what ground of economy is it put forward, that you really economise if you call upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pay less but upon the community to pay what he has saved? Where is the economy? If it is really intended to do that, why cloak it in this plethora of words? Why cover it up in this mesh of figures that the actuary has produced? Why not simply and plainly say that the economy that you intend here is this, that up to now the approved societies have only been called upon to pay what is necessary to secure the benefits and the administration of these benefits, and the other expenses, incident, I suppose, to the printing of the stamps and cards, have been paid by the Department? Why is not that frankly and straightforwardly stated?
I suggest that the reason is this, that it is too mean and too paltry a thing to put before the public. The Chancellor of the Exchequer apparently has gone to
every Department in the State and said: "I must cut down." He paused before the Health Department, and the officers there pointed out to him: "Here is a system that has given birth to many funds and great complexities. You can very easily collar money there, and cover it up in a, mesh of figures and technical statements that will make it obscure to the public eye." But if the reality is, as I believe it is—and I hope we get an answer —that in this Health Department an exception has been made from all other Departments in the case of the incidental expenses due to printing and other things which fall upon the Government, and they are to be passed on to the particular service—if that is the Economy Bill, to pass on general Government administrative expenses a paltry item to this particular service, when it is not, done in any other service, then I think we are entitled to say to the country that the Government, in their distress, do not get the money from those who are able to pay, and who, if asked to pay, would be in a position to defend themselves, but these paltry sums are sucked from the poorest of the poor. Because a fund is made up of millions of pence, and therefore comprises a large number of accounts, the money is sucked from the poor, because it does not affect the constituents behind right hon. Gentlemen, and, secondly, because by reason of its complexities, the Government believe they can throw dust in the eyes of the country.

Sir K. WOOD rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. HARNEY: (seated and covered): In this exceptional garb, Mr. Hope, I now address you. I asked, I think, quite courteously, certain questions which were coherent, I believe, to the right hon. Gentleman. Are we not entitled to a reply?

The CHAIRMAN: There is no point, of Order.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 136.

Division No. 127.]
AYES.
[7.8 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fermoy, Lord
Merriman, F. B.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fielden, E. B.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Finburgh, S.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Applin, colonel R. v. K.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred


Apsley, Lord
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Frece, Sir Walter de
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Balniel, Lord
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gilmour, Lt.-Cot. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Murchison, C, K.


Barnston, Major sir Harry
Goff, Sir Park
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Grant, J. A.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Bethel, A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Neville, R. J.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(Wth's'w, E)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. O. L. (Exetery)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grotrian, H. Brent
Nuttall, Ellis


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E-
Pennefather, Sir John


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Penny, Frederick George


Briggs, J. Harold
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Preston, William


Briscoe, Richard George
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Radford, E. A.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R, I.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Raine, W.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Ramsden, E.


Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper


Brown, Brig. -Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Haslam, Henry C.
Rentoul, G. S.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hawke, John Anthony
Rice, Sir Frederick


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bullock, Captain M.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Ropner, Major L.


Burman, J. B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rye, F. G.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Salmon, Major I.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Campbell, E. T.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cassels, J. D.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Homan, C. W. J.
Savery, S. S.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l. Exchange)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hudson, R. s. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Shepperson, E. W.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Skelton, A. N.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Huntingfield, Lord
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n& Kinc'dine,C.)


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hurst, Gerald B.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smithers, Waldron


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Clarry, Reginald George
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Clayton, G, C.
Jacob, A. E.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cobb, Sir Cyril
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Couper, J. B.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Streatfeild, Captain S R.


Courthope, Lieut -Col. sir George L.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Templeton, W. P.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Thomson, F. c. (Aberdeen, South)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Loder, J. de V.
Tinne, J. A.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Waddington, R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Drewe, C.
Macdonald. R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Eden, Captain Anthony
McLean, Major A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Elveden, Viscount
Malone, Major P. B.
Watts, Dr. T.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset. Weston-s.-M.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wells, S. R.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Margesson, Captain D.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fanshawe, Commander G. O.
Mason, Lieut. Col. Glyn K.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Womersley, W. J.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)



Wise, Sir Fredric
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Withers, John James
Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)
Major Cope and Captain Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scurr, John


Ammon, Charles George
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Sexton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hardie, George D.
Shaw, Rt. Hon, Thomas (Preston)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Harris, Percy A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barnes, A.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barr, J.
Hayday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, G. H.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sitch, Charles H.


Broad, F. A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smillie, Robert


Bromfield, William
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromley, J.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Snell, Harry


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buchanan, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Spoor, Rt. Hon, Benjamin Charles


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merioneth)
Stamford, T. W.


Clowes, S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sullivan, Joseph


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Connolly, M.
Kennedy, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kenyon, Barnet
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dalton, Hugh
Kirkwood, D.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lansbury, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Townend, A. E.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dennison, R.
Lunn, William
Varley, Frank B.


Duckworth, John
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Viant, S. P.


Dunnico, H.
Mackinder, W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacLaren, Andrew
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
March, S.
Warne, G. H.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Maxton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fenby, T. D.
Montague, Frederick
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Morris, R. H.
Westwood, J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gillett, George M.
Murnin, H.
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Wiggins, William Martin


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Paling, W.
Williams. C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Greenall, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T, (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Pureed, A. A.
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wright, W.


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Waiter



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Scrymgeour, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —




Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.


Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 128.]
AYES.
[9.19 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Forrest, w.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Nuttall, Ellis


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Pannefather, Sir John


Allan, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Plicher, G.


Apsley, Lord
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Preston, William


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Price, Major C. W. M.


Balniel, Lord
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Radford, E. A.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Goff, Sir Park
Rains, W.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Grant, J. A.
Ramsden, E.


Bethel, A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Grotrian, H. Brent
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F.E. (Bristol, N.)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Bourns, Captain Robert Croft
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hamniersley, S. S.
Ropner, Major L.


Brass, Captain W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rye, F. G.


Briggs, J. Harold
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Salmon, Major I.


Briscoe, Richard George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Haslam, Henry C.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Broun-Linsay, Major H.
Hawke, John Anthony
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel CM.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Henderson. Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. M c l. (Renfrew, W)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Shepperson, E. W.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co, Down)


Burman, J. B.
Hoare, Lt -Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Skelton, A. N.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n& Kinc'dine.C.)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Roman, C. W. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Smithers, Waldron


Campbell, E. T.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cassels, J. D.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Huntingfield, Lord
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hurst, Gerald B.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Chapman, Sir S.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Strickland, Sir G.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Jacob, A. E.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Chilcott, Sir Warden
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Templeton, W. P.


Clarry, Reginald George
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Clayton, G. C.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Tinne, J. A.


Cope, Major William
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Couper, J. B.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Waddington, R.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Huff)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
McLean, Major A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Watts, Dr. T.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Malone, Major P. B.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Drewe, C.
Meller, R. J.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Duckworth, John
Merriman, F. B.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Withers, John James


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Womersley, W. J.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Elveden, Viscount
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Murchison, C. K.



Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel sir Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Lord Stanley.


Fermoy, Lord
Neville, R. J.



Fielden, E. B.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Broad, F. A.
Charleton, H. C.


Ammon, Charles George
Bromfield, William
Clowes, S.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bromley, J.
Cluse, W. S.


Barr, J.
Brown, James (Ayr and Buts)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Batey, Joseph
Buchanan, G.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Connolly, M.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cape, Thomas
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Crawfurd, H. E.
John, William (Rhondda, Witt)
Smillie, Robert


Gallon, Hugh
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Snell, Harry


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Day, Colonel Harry
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Dennison, R.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Dunnico, H.
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kirkwood, D.
Sullivan, Joseph


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Fenby, T. D.
Lawson. John James
Taylor, R. A.


Gibbins, Joseph
Lee, F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby).


Gillett, George M.
Livingstone, A. M.
Thurtle, E.


Gosling, Harry
Lowth, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Townend, A. E.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Greenall, T,
Mackinder, W.
Varley, Frank B.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Fontypool)
Maxton, James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Groves, T.
Montague, Frederick
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Grundy, T. W.
Morris, R. H.
Warne, G. H.


Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. O. (Rhondda)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Murnin, H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Paling, W.
Whiteley, W.


Hardie, George D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wiggins, William Martin


Harney, E. A.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Harris, Percy A.
Potts, John S.
Williams, David (Swansea, E)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Pureed, A. A.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hayes, John Henry
Scrymgeour, E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scurr, John
Windsor, Walter


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sexton, James
Wright, W.


Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis



Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. B. Smith.


Hutchison, sir Robert (Montrose)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)



Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sitch, Charles H.

Question put accordingly "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 140.

Division No. 129.]
AYES.
[9.27 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Chapman, Sir S.
Frece, Sir Walter de


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Fremantle, Lieut-colonel Francis E.


Apsley, Lord
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Clarry, Reginald George
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Balniel, Lord
Clayton, G. C.
Goff, Sir Park


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grant, J. A.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)


Bethel, A.
Cope, Major William
Grotrian, H. Brent


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Couper, J. B.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristrol, N.)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R Skipton)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gunston, Captain O. W.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hammersley, S. S.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Crookshank, Col. c. de W. (Berwick)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Brass, Captain W.
Crookshank, Cpt, H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Curtis-Bennett, sir Henry
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Briggs, J. Harold
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnet)


Briscoe, Richard George
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Haslam, Henry C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hawke, John Anthony


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Henderson, Capt. R, R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks Newb'y)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Drewe, C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Bullock, Captain M.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Burman, J. B.
Elveden, Viscount
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Everard, W. Lindsay
Homan, C. W. J.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Campbell, E. T.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Cassels, I. O
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Cayzer, sir C. (Chester, City)
Fermoy, Lord
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fielden, E. B.
Huntingfield, Lord


Hurst, Gerald B.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Nuttall, Ellis
Streatfeild Captain S. R.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Pennetather, Sir John
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Jacob, A. E.
Pilcher, G.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Kennedy, A. B. (Preston)
Preston, William
Templeton, W. P.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Price, Major C, W. M.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Radford, E. A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Raine, W.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Ramsden, E.
Tinne, J.A.


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Rice, Sir Frederick
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Lord, Walter Greaves-
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Waddington, H.


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Ropner, Major L.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Lynn, Sir R. J-
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Rye, F. G.
Watson, sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


McLean, Major A.
Salmon, Major I.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Maitland, Sir Arthur O. Steel-
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Watts, Dr. T.


Malone, Major P. B.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall. Northern)


Margesson, Captain D.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Meller, R. J.
Snaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Wilson, sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Merriman, F. B.
Shaw, Lt.-Col A.D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Shepperson, E. W.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streathem)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Withers, John James


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Skelton, A. N.
Womersley, W. J.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. H. (Ayr)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wood, E.(Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Smithers, Waldron
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Murchison, C. K.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)



Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—.


Nelson, Sir Frank
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Major sir Harry Barnston.


Neville, R. J.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)



Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Ammon Charles George
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark. N)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Barker, G.(Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.


Barr, J.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Purcell, A. A.


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Harney, E. A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Broad, F. A.
Harris, Percy A.
Scurr, John


Bromfield, William
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sexton, James


Bromley, J.
Mayday, Arthur
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Brown. James (Ayr and Bute)
Hayes, John Henry
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Short Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, G. H.
Sinclair, Major Sir A.(Caithness)


Charleton, H. C.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sitch, Charles H.


Clowes, S.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smillie, Robert


Cluse, W. S.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith Rennie (Penistone)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John H.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Snell Harry


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Jenkins, w. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Connolly, M.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stamford, T. W.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jones Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stephen, Campbell


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sullivan, Joseph Sutton J. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Taylor, R. A.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Kelly, W, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Day, Colonel Harry
Kennedy, T.
Thurtle, E.


Dennison, R.
Kirkwood, D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Duckworth, John
Lansbury, George
Townend, A. E.


Dunnico, H.
Lawson, John James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lee, F.
Varley, Frank B.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Lowth, T.
Viant. S. P.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lunn William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Fenby, T. D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Walsh, Rt. Hon Stephen


Forrest, W.
Mackinder, W.
Warne, G. H.


Gibbins, Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, U.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gillett, George M.
March, S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gosling, Harry
Maxton, James
Westwood, J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Montague, Frederick
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm, (Edin., Cent.
Morris, R. H.
Whiteley, W.


Greenall, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottanham, N.)
Wiggins, William Martin


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colnel)
Murnin, H.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Groves, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.





Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield. Attercliffe)
Wright, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wilson, R.J. (J arrow)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. B. Smith.


Windsor, Walter

Sir R. HAMILTON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, to leave out the word "threepence," and to insert instead thereof the words "one penny."
The object of this Amendment is fairly obvious. It is to reduce the sum of threepence in respect of the expenses of the Minister to one penny, which would mean, I think, a saving of about £120,000 to the societies. On an earlier Amendment to the Clause I asked for information as to the actual expenses which were included in the expenses incurred by the Minister. and was given a figure amounting, I think, to one penny per person for regional medical officers and the central committees. I understand that since then a further question has been asked as regards other costs to the approved societies in connection with the printing of stamps which I understand hitherto has been a Departmental charge. I should like to know whether it is intended that this extra charge is to be put also on the approved societies. The answer I got earlier was fairly concise. It was that. there were no further charges to he incurred other than those of the regional medical officers and the central committees. But I think that this Committee should know what those charges amount. to, and whether the sum of threepence is not considerably in excess of that which is necessary.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): The answer to the hon. Member is quite short and quite clear. In this question there are included only two kinds of expenditure. One is that connected with the regional medical officers, and the other one is the expense incurred in connection with the central committees. There is no other charge whatever. The proposal to reduce the amount which may be paid to the Minister from threepence to one penny is apparently based upon no sound foundation whatever—no logical foundation. It is not suggested by the hon. Member that one penny would cover the cost of these two services, and what he is asking us to do is to make a present to the approved societies of the difference between threepence and one penny. In other words, we are to alter the practice which has hitherto prevailed under which
the Ministry of Health has been compensated for its expenses in this respect, and we are to throw upon the Exchequer the portion of that charge which hitherto has rested upon the approved societies. No reason whatever has been adduced as to why this transfer should be made, and in the circumstances it is quite impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment.

Mr. THOMAS: If no reason has been adduced in favour of this Amendment, we will endeavour to supply it, because there are a number of my hon. Friends who are very familiar with this question, and who will be able to give the Minister an opportunity later of answering. But we at this time are entitled to say to the Government "Are you going to give us anything?" Here we have been day after day, hour after hour, pleading the cause of these people. We have not been met by arguments from the other side. It is quite true that we have had the consolation of seeing their numbers gradually but surely diminishing, but we have not yet had any concession of any sort of kind given to us. Now the right hon. Gentle. man gets up and says "No; there is no logic nor commonsense in this matter. On the contrary, I cannot understand any practical person supporting it." I will give the right hon. Gentleman the reason why I and my friends not only support it, but will go into the Division Lobby in favour of it. This is merely an attempt on our part to prevent the Government's Continuing this policy of bleeding the approved societies. It is quite true that my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney (Sir R. Hamilton) never attempted to say what he, indeed, did not want to say, that this penny would meet the whole of the charges. That is not our case. Incidentally, there has not been sufficient evidence to show that that is not so, but that is not the point. The point is that the Government already have robbed these societies to such an extent that we are now going to minimise their loss as much as we can. We do not pretend that this penny is sufficient to bear the charges. Whatever the Advisory Council may have said on the general question that is embodied in this Amendment, the fact remains that they merely said it on
the understanding and on the assumption that it was a compromise on the general situation.
Surely we have reached the stage when the Minister might make a concession. I am appealing to him at this moment. Here he is, the victim of an unscrupulous Chancellor of the Exchequer. The real genius of the whole piece simply troops in when there is a religion, and the Minister of Health bas to sit there, knowing perfectly well that all that we are saying is true enough, and that if he and his friends were on this side they would be just as bad as we are. Surely, therefore, the time has come when we are entitled to point out that here is a simple proposal involving only £125,000. That is the sum total. If we talked about£125,000 to the Chancellor of the Exchequer we should insult him. We are trying in this Amendment to save the situation. We are faced by the big battalions of the Government, not by arguments, but merely by brute force. They will go into the Lobby against us, and it is for all those reasons, and many more that will be adduced, that I support this Amendment.

Mr. WALLHEAD: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health on previous Amendments has argued in favour of this Clause because it has been agreed to by the Consultative Committee, but it has been pointed out in the course of the Debate that the Consultative Committee agreed to this Clause on the assumption that Clause I would have been deferred. It seems to me that the Government would have been able to make out a better case for this Clause if they had accepted the Amendment moved by the Opposition prior to the Easter Recess to allow Clause I to stand over until this time, when the approved societies would have had something to say about the thing as a whole. It may be argued that the saving of this £120,000 is comparatively little to the approved societies, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now scraping in all directions to save a few thousands and, if a few thousand pounds are valuable to him, they are equally valuable to the approved societies. We will find that in this Bill he has stooped so low as to save £350 on an election in the Shetland and Orkney Islands, and, if ho has stooped so low as
that, surely we ought to do something to save this money for the approved societies. Under the 1924 Bill the approved societies undertook to save the State from the new charge made by the doctors, and they came to the rescue of the Exchequer by taking that burden upon themselves. That ought to have earned them some consideration, and they ought to have been saved this small amount.
The Bill is mean in every detail and mean in its baseness. The whole thing is despicably mean for all its savings are all being saved at the expense of the poor people in order to save the Chancellor of the Exchequer from re-establishing the tax on unearned incomes which he took off last year. The basis of the whole thing is an attempt to save the rich at the expense of the poor. We are justified in the line we have taken because we are doing our best to save a few thousands from the clutching hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Bill is mean in its business, and in all its details, and the more the details are considered the meaner its proposals become. I should have imagined that this Amendment would have appealed to the hon. Gentlemen opposite, who protest so lavishly about their desire to establish good relations between the "Haves" and the "Have-nots," when the "Haves" are constantly taking away the little bit that the "Have-nots" have. The Government are truly Biblical in their action for they take for their motto:
Unto him that bath shall be given, and from him that hath not, shall be taken away even that which he hath.
We are justified in the line we have taken and in exposing the utter meanness of the Government in the attempt to protect their rich friends at the expense of their poor dupes.

Mr. HARRIS: I support this Amendment, which is one of substance and principle. The Government came in with a scheme of compulsory insurance. A system of insurance existed long before the Government scheme, but the State intervened to make the contribution compulsory and the Central Department exists, not in the interests of the beneficiaries or of the societies, but in order to watch over the share of the State. It does not therefore seem reasonable, fair
or proper that the whole cost should be put upon the approved societies. A case can be made for the approved societies bearing part of the cost, but it does not seem equitable that the whole of the cost should be put upon them. There ought to be a more equitable distribution of this charge between the State and the approved societies. If it were not for the unselfish and even voluntary work of the members of the approved societies, much more work would have to be done by the State which would have to engage endless officials and that would entail a heavy charge on the National Exchequer. To put the cost entirely on to the approved societies is against the whole spirit of the Act of Parliament, which was to give the whole of this money to the societies to distribute in benefits. The Minister must make out a case to show why the cost of the administration of a big scheme of this character, in which the State is largely a partner and in which the State is responsible under the Act of Parliament, should be put upon the approved societies entirely, and why some share should not be put upon the taxpayer.

Mr. BECKETT: The Minister of Health asked us to give some logical reason why a penny should be substituted. He tried to point out that there was no obvious reason why the State should bear any larger proportion of the expenditure than the amount which he specifies in the Clause. Surely he has not taken all the facts into consideration when he makes that statement. The Government are reducing this Fund by £2,800,000 annually. It is a joint Fund made up from three sources, and one of those three sources not only backs out and reduces the amount of the total available every year. but also proceeds to put on an added charge for the services it renders. The equivalent of this suggestion would be if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to put another 3d. in the £ on the Super-tax to meet the cost of collection. This is just as much a tax on the working people as any other tax. Yet the Government say that the people must continue their payments, while the Government reduce theirs, and that, not only must the total amount available for benefit be reduced, but on top of that the Government will withdraw the small amount that they are giving. That seems to be the limit of
meanness which a rich man's Government can devise.
Whenever approved societies are mentioned, there is a tendency on the part of hon. Members opposite to speak of them as if they were some large corporate body. They wholly forget the units of which the societies are actually composed. This proposal means that you are giving only £120,000 a year to provide slightly better benefits and attention for the people who need those benefits very much indeed. The present medical service which is extended to the masses of the people of this country has been given in return for a constant and steady drain upon the wages of the workers and upon their prospects of getting employment by imposing a poll tax per head upon them. They get in return a very inadequate service, and when, after four years, in spite of increased expenditure and very loyal and voluntary service to the community the approved societies are beginning to get on their feet again, all those working people who have made the scheme a success find themselves hopelessly handicapped in this way. In regard to what is in moral if not in legal terms a deliberate theft from these people, after breaking he most sacred pledges, when we propose to give them some little service to mitigate those hardships we are told that ours is not a logical proposal and cannot be accepted.
I have not noticed that logic has played a very great part in the speeches of the supporters of the Government in this Parliament. There cannot be any logic in a proposal to deprive the poor of their benefits in order to relieve the Super-tax payer and enable him to take his money abroad for investment. I suggest that here is a chance for hon. Members opposite to save their political lives to some slight extent. When the Division records are examined—and there will be no divisions more closely scanned than the divisions on this Bill—when the electors hear about the steady tramp of rich men to rob the poor, they will say at the next election, "We will return somebody with less money and more sense." Why is the majority smaller on every Clause of this Bill than on any other subject which this House has discussed? Simply because every hon. Member opposite who represents a constituency where there is a pre-
ponderance of working people knows that they will be able to say, "You robbed us of £2,800,000 in the interests of your own pals but you only gave us £120,000 back in service."

10.0 P.M.

Mr. BROMLEY: I listened to the Debate on this particular Measure, both on the occasion of our very long sittings, and also this afternoon, and I have listened to a good deal of criticism of the Government. I think the Government are at least entitled to some recognition from this side of the House of the difficulties with which they are confronted. There is no doubt that any Government, faced with financial stress and endeavouring to balance its Budget and trying to run the nation without overburdening it with taxation, is justified in looking round for places where there is unexpended money or surpluses which could be used to help the nation through its time of stress. The only difficulty that we experience is the direction in which the eyes of the Government are turned to find that money. A precedent is now being set up for future governments, and this will be some guide to the Labour party as to what they can do in similar circumstances, although, I think, we should look in other directions than the savings of the working people in order to ease the financial position. It is good to find surplus money and to use taxation generally to meet our difficulties. But it is a tragedy that we on these benches should have to fight as we did before the Easter Recess and as we are doing now, in order to save funds which have been carefully conserved and built up by the sacrifices of the working classes. If I happen to be looking for expenditure that was not necessary or instances where money was being wasted, I should look at some £10,000,000 a year which is being spent now upon fox hunting, and about £4,500,000 a year which is being spent upon grouse shooting. Now the Government is taking money which should be devoted to securing the health and welfare of working people.
The Minister of Health has rather questioned the wisdom of taking twopence of this threepence, which would apparently not be sufficient to meet the requirements. If an argument is wanted
why we should be pressing to have the change made which is suggested in the Amendment we are now considering, I would ask how has the surpluses of the approved societies been built up? happen to be the secretary of one of these societies myself, and I was recently told by the chief administrative officer of the Ministry of Health that the organisation which I managed was one of the most economically managed in the country. How have we done that? Simply by spending our money wisely in management by adopting economical methods, and by conserving our funds generally. The amount of £60,000,000 which has been referred to is about £4 per head of the members of approved societies. That is going to be filched from us in the future. We have devoted, and shall continue to devote, some amount of our administration expenses to carefully conserving even that which is left to us. The word "robbery" has been used a great deal, and one right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway rather apologised to the Committee for speaking plain English. I am pleased that some of my hon. Friends on these benches did so, for I regard it, in plain, blunt English, as being a robbery of carefully-conserved funds amassed by working people organised in friendly societies and trade unions for their own benefit, and, incidentally and in the long run, for the benefit of the nation.
That is being taken from us. The Amendment asks for this relief in respect of our administration expenditure, which is greater, possibly, than it might otherwise be if we left things slack and did not conserve the funds and take care of the general expenditure, and so permit of these surpluses. This relief would be some measure of requitement for our expenditure on administration in conserving the funds, which has made it possible for this Government to rob our hen-roosts. Therefore, the Minister need have no qualms of conscience on account of the fact that the penny may not meet the requirements, and it would be something to assist us to meet our requirements in this direction, as some balance to the sacrifices that our people in approved societies have made. I do not want to speak too strongly about it, because there has been pretty strong speaking, if it had any effect, though I am sorry to say it has not had the effect
that it should have. I would, however, mention again the silence from the opposite benches, which has shown that, apart from the Ministers of the Government, Members of the Tory party have not a word of justification to say in support of this Measure or any bearing it has on the future welfare of the working people.
It is paltry to think of a nation which now has to balance its Budget in thousands of millions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hundreds of millions!']— I am talking of the balancing of its Budget, and I say again that it is particularly paltry on the part of a party which has no argument for taking, from the funds accruing by scientific and careful management by working-class organisation, now two or three millions, now a few hundred thousand pounds, when very many millions have been taken to ease people who have not so much sympathy with approved society members, because very few, I am

afraid, on the opposite side of the House, have to rely for their medical care on approved societies. Therefore, as they are not hit by it, they have not the sympathy that they would have if it were another 6d. on the Income Tax. I would suggest to the Minister, although I am afraid it will not have the weight that it might have, that, having taken the major portion, he might leave us this little bit by accepting this Amendment, so as to show at least a desire to meet some of our protests on this side, and not to carry everything by weight of numbers and absence of justification.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in his place, and claimed to move,"That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 139.

Division No. 130.]
AYES.
[10.10 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T,
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Harrison, G. J. C.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cope. Major William
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Couper, J. B.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Apsley, Lord
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Haslam, Henry C.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N)
Hawke, John Anthony


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Balniel, Lord
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Barnett, Major sir Richard
Curzon, Captain viscount
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Benn, sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Bethel, A.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Holt, Captain H. P.


Blundell, F. N.
Drewe, C.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Duckworth, John
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Bowater. Sir T. Vansittart
Eden, Captain Anthony
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Brass. Captain W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Huntingfield, Lord


Brings, J. Harold
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Briscoe, Richard George
Elveden, Viscount
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Jacob, A. E.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Brown, Col. O. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Falls, Sir Bertram G.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Fermoy, Lord
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Fielden, E. B.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Bullock, Captain M.
Forrest, W.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Burman, J. B.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Caine, Gordon Hall
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lord, Walter Greaves-


Campbell, E. T.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Lougher, L.


Cassels, J. D.
Goff, Sir Park
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gower, Sir Robert
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Grant, J. A.
Macdonald, R- (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
McLean, Major A


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Chapman, Sir S.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon.F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Malone, Major P. B.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.


Clayton, G. C.
Hammersley, S.S
Meller, R. J.


Merriman, F. B.
Rye, F. G.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Salmon, Major I.
Tinne, J. A.


Mitchell, Sir w. Lane (Streatham)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. ft. (Ayr)
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Waddington, R,


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Murchison, C. K.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Shaw, Lt-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew. W.)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Nelson, Sir Frank
Shaw, Capt W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Neville, R. J.
Shepperson, E. W.
Watts, Dr. T.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Skelton, A. N.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Nuttall, Ellis
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Pennefather, Sir John
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Plicher, G.
Smithers, Waldron
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Preston, William
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Wise, Sir Fredric


Price, Major C. W. M.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F. (Will'sden, E.)
Withers, John James


Radford, E. A.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Womersley, W. J.


Raine, W.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Ramsden, E.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Wood. E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Strickland, Sir Gerald
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Rice, Sir Frederick
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid



Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Templeton, W. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ropner, Major L.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Captain Margesson and Captain Bowyer.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Amnion, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hayes, John Henry
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barr, J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, G. H.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sitch, Charles H.


Broad, F. A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromfield, William
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smillie, Robert


Bromley, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snell, Harry


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Clowes, S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W, T.
Stewart, J. (St Rollox)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, T.
Sullivan, Joseph


Connolly, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Sutton, J. E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities]
Lansbury, George
Taylor, R. A.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lawson, John James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, F.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lowth, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lunn, William
Townend, A. E.


Dennison, R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dunnico, H.
Mackinder, W.
Varley, Frank B.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacLaren, Andrew
Viant, S. P.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
March, S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Fenby, T. D.
Maxton, James
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Montague, Frederick
Warne, G. H.


Gibbins, Joseph
Morris, R. H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondde)


Gillett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gosling, Harry
Murnin, H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, W.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Oliver, George Harold
Wiggins. William Martin


Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Dan Valley)


Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson. C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Purcell, A. A.
Wright, W.


Hall, F. (York, W. R, Normanton)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D.
Scrymgeour, E.
Sir Godfrey Collins and Sir Robert Hutchison.


Harney, E. A.
Scurr, John



Harris, Percy A.
Sexton, James

Question put accordingly, That the word 'threepence' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 142.

Division No. 131.]
AYES.
[10 19 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Frece, Sir Walter de
Pennefather, Sir John


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis I.
Pitcher, G.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, w. Derby)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Apaley, Lord
Golf, Sir Park
Preston, William


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Price, Major C. W. M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Grant, J. A.
Radford, E. A.


Balniel, Lord
Greenwood, Rt. Hn.Sir H.(W'th's'w. E)
Raine, W.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Grotrian, H. Brent
Ramsden, E.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristol, N.)
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Richardson, sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bethel, A.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Ropner, Major L.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Hammersley, S. S.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Blundell, F. N.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rye, F. G.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harrison, G. J. C.
Salmon, Major I.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Hartington, Marquess of
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brass, Captain W.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kenning ton)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Briggs, J. Harold
Haslam, Henry C.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hawke, John Anthony
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M,
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Heneage, Lieut.-Cot. Arthur P.
Shepperson, E. W.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Skelton, A. N.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Burman, J. B.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Smithers, Waldron


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Campbell, E. T.
Huntingfield, Lord
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sdan, E.)


Cassels, J. D
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Jacob, A. E.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon, N. (Ladywood)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Chapman, Sir S.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Templeton, W. P.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitcheil


Clarry, Reginald George
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Tinne, J. A.


Clayton, G. c
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cochrane, Commander Hon, A. D.
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Cope, Major William
Lougher, L.
Waddington, R.


Caliper, J. B.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
McLean, Major A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Watts, Dr. T.


Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Malone, Major P. B.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Davidson. J. (Hertf'd, Hemil Hempst'd)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Meller, R. J,
Wilson, sir C H. (Leeds, Central)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Merriman, F. B.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Drewe, C.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Withers, John James


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Womerstey, W. J.


Elveden, Viscount
Morden, Cot. W. Grant
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Murchison, C. K.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.J.)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Nelson, Sir Frank



Fermoy, Lord
Neville, R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


Fielden, E. B.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Captain Margesson and Captain Bowyer.


Foster, Sir Harry t.
Newton, Sir D, G. C. (Cambridge)



Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Nuttall, Ellis





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Batey, Joseph
Bromfield, William


Ammon, Charles George
Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Bromley, J.


Barker, C. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Barr, J.
Broad, F. A
Buchanan, G.




Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cape, Thomas
Hore-Belisha, Leslie.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Charleton, H. C.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Clowes, S.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sitch, Charles H.


Cluse, W. s.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smillie, Robert


Connolly, M.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cowan, O. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snell, Harry


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kelly, W. T.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. w.


Dennison, R.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, Campbell


Duckworth John
Lansbury, George
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Dunnico, H,
Lawson, John James
Sullivan, Joseph


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lee, F.
Sutton, J. E.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Lowth, T.
Taylor, R. A


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lunn, William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Fenby, T. D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Thurtle, E.


Forrest, W.
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
MacLaren, Andrew
Townend, A. E.


Gibbins, Joseph
March, S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gillett, George M.
Maxton, James
Varley, Frank B.


Gosling, Harry
Montague, Frederick
Viant, S. P.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morris, R. H.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Morrison, R, C. (Tottenham, N.)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Bret-nail, T.
Murnin, H.
Warne, G. H.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Naylor, T. E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt. Col. D. (Rhondda)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Oliver, George Harold
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Groves, T.
Palin, John Henry
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.
Whiteley, W.


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wiggins, William Martin


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Potts, John S.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Pureed, A. A.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hardie, George D.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Harney, E. A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Harris, Percy A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wright, W.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scrymgeour, E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster. Newton)


Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John



Hayes, John Henry
Sexton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Sir Godfrey Collins and Sir Robert Hutchison.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis



Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Mr. MACKINDER: I beg to move, in page 3, line 35, to leave out the word "twenty-seven," and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-eight."
This Amendment will at least give the Minister an opportunity, now that the wider issue has been debated in this House and by the approved societies throughout the country, of retrieving the very disastrous move he and his party made less than a fortnight ago. On that occasion we pleaded very strongly that the approved societies should have an opportunity during Easter to meet and discuss their position in order that they should know exactly how their members felt about it before they were robbed. I am not too happy in using the word "robbed," for I say frankly and seriously, as one who has worked the National Health Insurance Act as an executive officer for a number of years and who knows the approved person as well as it is possible for any man to know him, that if the Minister of Health had had an opportunity of working the
Act in the same way as some of us have he would never have dreamt of taking away potential benefits from people who can least afford to lose them. Throughout this Debate not the least bit of notice has been taken of the most important person in the whole business; and that is the approved person.
I remember that when I was appointed as an approved society secretary 1 was asked to meet an old and experienced public man, and he said to me, "Do not forget that your first consideration is the approved member. Neither character nor name for yourself ought to be considered. The first persons to be considered are the sick and the ailing, for whom you are administering the Act." I say that to take away a large amount of money, as the first Clause of this Bill does, and to pile on top of that about another £2,000,000 in extra cost to the society—it may be in agreement, but if the agreement were analysed, it would be found to be an agreement conditional upon Clause 1 not being accepted. The Par-
liamentary Secretary shakes his head. Probably I have been in as many negotiations as he has, and when I have taken an agreement to be accepted I have always understood that if one part of the agreement was not accepted, the whole of the proposals were withdrawn. But these were not negotiations. They were a bombshell thrown at the Consultative Committee, and then the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary came to this House and said, "We think that the approved societies' Consultative Committee are perfectly right. They are really good chaps to take on this extra cost of medical benefit, and we ask the House to agree with their point of view." But when the Consultative Committee disagreed with the action of the Minister regarding Clause 1, the Ministers say, "Oh, the Consultative Committee are wrong. We must have this £2,000,000."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understood that the hon. Member was moving the Amendment to leave out "twenty-seven" and to insert "twenty-eight." He is now straying from that point.

Mr. MACKINDER: If I have transgressed the rules, I apologise. I am trying to give the Parliamentary Secretary, who is taking main charge to-day, and the Minister, an opportunity of retrieving the disastrous position which they reached less than a fortnight ago when they made it legal to rob the Insurance Fund of £2,800000. Now they are trying to put an extra cost on the insurance societies of £2,000,000. They cannot retrieve the position by giving back the £2,800,000, but they can make it £2,000,000 per annum easier, and I am asking this Committee to postpone the effect of putting the extra £2,000,000 burden on to the approved societies for a year, in order to give the societies an opportunity of looking around. I take it that I am consistent with the rules in drawing attention to what the Minister has done and trying to warn him that the way of transgressors is hard. I am trying to convince him and to persuade him, and possibly some members of the party opposite, to vote for the Amendment.
The Amendment would defer the placing of an extra burden of 2s. 6d. per year on approved societies. One could argue, and I feel almost inclined to argue, that the
position of the doctors is being made quite safe by Act of Parliament. I was in the early negotiations, when we tried to arrange terms with the doctors. They are now going to reach the magnificent sum of 12s. per year per approved member. I remember that in Bradford we had nearly a battle royal with the doctors. As a matter of fact, we got to the stage when we issued advertisements to have doctors for the whole of the city, instead of having most of them placed on the list of approved doctors. The doctors would not have it, and since then they have been steadily improving their position. Now they are going to have a legal minimum wage fixed by Parliament on an undertaking entered into with the consent of Parliament. They can go to 12s. a year for each approved member whether they attend that approved member or not. I would like to go into other questions, such as the question of the drugs they may prescribe, but I fear it would be out of order to do so.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot see what this argument has to do with the question of postponement.

Mr. MACKINDER: I am trying to show the Committee in the short time at my disposal that it is extremely wrong to give the doctors by Act of Parliament at least 12s. per year per member while the approved members themselves are being robbed of £2,800,000 arid having an extra £2,000,000 of cost imposed upon them. If you, Sir, rule me out of order on that point I shall have to bow to your ruling. I submit, at, all events, that we ought to give the approved societies an opportunity of realising on a 12 months' experience what the effect of this Measure is going to be. We know with certainty they are to have £2,800,000 stolen from them, because this Committee has passed the Clause which allows the Minister—or I should say the Chancellor of the Exchequer—to do so. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health does not wish to do so, and he must feel very uncomfortable at being made the scapegoat for Winston. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order !"] I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; I refer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I put it to the Minister of Health that to deprive the societies of the £2,800,000 is quite sufficient for one
year without imposing the further charge of £2,000,000. I do not know what the experience of other hon. Members has been during the holidays, but I have had large numbers of letters and interviews and communications of various kinds on this subject.
Hon. Members on this side have not had a single threat as to what will happen to them if they do not oppose this Bill, because it is well known in the country that we are opposing it. The Minister has no right to accept the Consultative Committee's recommendation in one Clause, while refusing to accept their recommendation in another Clause, because those recommendations were given as a whole. If the Minister will only take the opportunity which this Amendment offers he will he adopting the right course. Regarding a previous Amendment the Minister said there was no reason or logic in proposing that the sum of 3d. which is to be allowed to the Minister for expenses should be reduced to 1d. What is the logic of the Minister's proposal I During the many years in which I was an approved society secretary my accounts were carefully scrutinised by the auditors. Who passed the auditor's expenses?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is not an argument for postponing the Clause, hut an argument against the Clause altogether. The hon. Member must confine himself to postponing the operation of the Clause for one year.

Mr. THOMAS: On a point of Order. Is it, competent for an hon. Member to show that, in his opinion, general evils will follow certain acts? Surely he is entitled to point out that those general consequences ought to be postponed for 12 months.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: He has pointed that out to us at great length already.

Mr. THOMAS: With great respect, I would point out that it may have been irrelevant before. I am accepting your point, but surely, whatever may have been said, on an Amendment that definitely says that this shall not operate for 12 months, it is in order to raise all the consequences and to show that they at least ought to he postponed. It may be that
my hon. Friend has perhaps taken a long time to reach that point, but I am sure that that is where he is trying to arrive.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It would not be in order to repeat the Debate we have already had in order to show that this Clause should be postponed. If we had the same Debate on each Amendment, we should never get on.

Mr. THOMAS: That is the difficulty in which we find ourselves. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite —after all, they are prevented from expressing their opinions—but it does not prevent us from expressing ours. The difficulty of repetition in this Bill is that every Clause is taking something from the approved societies. We have now reached a stage where the accumulated effect has been explained hour after hour here, and we now want to say to hon. Members and to the Minister: "Now that you, by the force of your numbers, say you are going to do all these things, in spite of our opposition, you at least ought to say they shall not be done for 12 months."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member should confine himself to saying that it should not take effect till 12 months have passed. That would he sufficient, but he cannot repeat the arguments that have been used against the Bill on previous Amendments.

Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order. This is a subject upon which a number of us feel keenly, and if we are led to understand by the Government spokesman that these Clauses are the result of certain negotiations with the representatives of other interested parties and of certain recommendations by a special Consultative Committee, arid if my hon. Friends are able to advance reasons why we do not believe that these negotiations have reached a conclusion, and that the other parties wish to continue them, are we not entitled to represent that as a reason for delay until these negotiations are brought to a more satisfactory conclusion?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Those were not the arguments that were being used when I called the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder) to order.

Mr. MACKINDER: I desire to adhere strictly to the ruling of the Chair, but I think it is hardly fair to say that we are
using arguments which have been used in previous parts of the Debate when the very point that I was raising had not been touched upon by a single speaker. As a matter of fact, I was on my feet to raise that particular point when the Minister gagged us. I was not wanting to raise the whole matter. When I spoke of the Audit Department being a cost of insurance, that was a point not raised by a single speaker. Therefore, I am not raising old matter which has been raised in Debate, and I am trying as hard as I possibly can to give, reasons to the Minister why he should postpone this Clause 12 months, to give the approved societies the opportunity of saying what effect this £2,800,000 robbery would have upon them and upon the course of their work. The Parliamentary Secretary shook his head when I said that the acceptance by the approved societies of Clause 2 was conditional on Clause 1 being rejected. May I ask the Minister if he is prepared to consult with the Consultative Committee, now that Clause 1 has been passed, to see what their opinion is about Clause 2? May I give that as an additional reason why the Minister should accept this Amendment, and give the approved societies an opportunity of expressing what they really Think about Clause 2 I suggest that that is an additional reason why the Minister should accept this Amendment, and why the postponement of the extra 2s. 6d. per member should be deferred for another year, and let him have an opportunity of consulting again with his Consultative Committee, now that they have the opportunity of meeting the approved societies, now that the Executive Committee of the approved societies have had the opportunity of meeting in conference, and now that some hon. Members opposite have had the opportunity of hearing the point of view as expressed by the approved societies in their annual conference. It was proposed to make it legal that the doctors should be able to have 12s., that the insurance Committee should be able to have 6d., and that the Minister should be able to have 3d.—all these to be taken out of the weekly contributions of the poorest of the poor, and while the workman or workwoman who is ill, the workman whose cost of living, cost of necessities, cost of every-
thing that a workman or workwoman needs is going up, at a time when they need it the most, the position of a person who is better off is to be stabilised and fixed as a national legal minimum by Act of Parliament. I say it is monstrous that any Minister of any standing should come to the House of Commons, should be dragooned by an unscrupulous Chancellor of the Exchequer—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member can complain that that is not a repetition of arguments we have already heard. He must confine himself to the particular Amendment.

Mr. MACKINDER: I was simply trying to use it as an illustration, and not as an argument. It will lead me to be very watchful and wary of Members opposite who use illustrations, and the Chairman of the Committee does not take them as arguments. I am quite prepared to stay and fight this Bill for a few more all-night sittings. I have had the experience of being an insured person and also of administering the Act, and I think it is a monstrous proceeding to take £2,800,000 and then—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is using the same arguments. I shall have to ask him to resume his seat if he does not obey the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. MACKINDER: I want to give reasons why they should postpone the additional burden on an approved society of £2,000,000 net after they have robbed them of £2,800,000. I put it to the Minister that that is quite a sufficient dose in one year, and I respectfully ask that they will accept our Amendment and given an opportunity to the approved societies to consult with their members. If the approved societies have not an opportunity to consult in conference, representing different approved societies, it is pretty true to say that the person who matters the most has not been consulted yet, and that is the approved member. When all is said and done, this Act was not instituted for Cabinet Ministers, doctors, or insurance committees; it was instituted for the approved members, and for this reason I ask the Minister to accept the Amendment to postpone the working of this extra burden on the approved societies
for another 12 months in order that they may consider their position, and, having considered their position, may make representations to the Minister.

Mr. THOMAS: I rise at this stage to ask the Minister whether he does not think the Amendment of my hon. Friend was at least worthy of a reply. After all, when an Amendment is moved, and arguments in support of the Amendment given, the least we are entitled to expect is that the Minister responsible will either, on behalf of the Government, accept the Amendment, or give, alternatively, the benefit to the Committee of his reasons why the Amendment cannot be accepted. I put it to the Committee that that is the ordinary Parliamentary procedure. It is not only the ordinary Parliamentary procedure, but it is common courtesy due to him. I refuse to believe that my right hon. Friend failed to continue that well known Parliamentary practice for the reason that he may have assumed my hon. Friend went out of what he believed to be the legitimate rights and merits of the question. I cannot conceive that that would be his reason for not following that well-established practice. If that be not the reason, then I can only conclude that there must be some other reason, and I assume that it is this.
We are asking in this Amendment that an opportunity should be given to the only people who will be affected to consider the whole circumstances. Why should it be urged that this is not a fair proposition when there is not a Member on the Government Benches or on their side of the House who has said a solitary word to his constituents either in election addresses or since dealing with this proposal? The first point I make is that it is a violation of every election pledge made, and it is one on which the people ought to be consulted. There was a Royal Commission appointed by our Government and not by yours. You had nothing to do with it, but you got the benefit of it in as much as the approved societies agreed to take over a liability that was legitimately the State's. We said to them, "In return for your concession, we are prepared to have a Royal Commission to consider the whole question of national insurance."

Sir K. WOOD: The approved Societies never made such a concession.

Mr. THOMAS: If the hon. Gentleman will talk about things he knows, I will tell him things he does not know. I was entrusted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) and the then Minister for Health (Mr. Wheatley) with the responsibility of conducting the negotiations with the approved societies. I was empowered to say to them that if they would come to the State's assistance and meet this tremendous liability, we would undertake on our part to have the whole question of national insurance reviewed by a Royal Commission. That was the bargain I made with them. Surely we are entitled to say that, if those were the conditions and the bargain, those people who are so vitally affected should at least have an opportunity of considering what the Report says.
If this Amendment were accepted by the Government, it would serve two purposes. It would give an opportunity to the approved societies not only to consider the Report, but to do something far more important- than that. They would see that if the Government's intention is to go on raiding the funds then they would have to adapt themselves to the circumstances and prepare their machinery for it. Is it unreasonable to make that request? Is it not true that a request for postponement, for some further reconsideration, has already been made to the Minister by the representatives of practically every approved society in the country? Some comment was made earlier in the day about the difficulties of hon. Members in the Division Lobby, anti the absence of hon. Gentlemen taking part in the Debate. I venture to say that their post-bags during the last few days must have clearly indicated the tremendous feeling that exists. Will the Government put it to a fair test by taking their Whips off?

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT (PONTYPRIDD).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Mr. MARDY JONES: I beg to call the attention of the House to the fact that on 24th March last I put a question to the Minister of Labour and had such an unsatisfactory answer that I could not expect to satisfy my constituents if I did not raise the matter this evening. On 24th March I put the following question to the Minister:
To ask the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn to the practice of the Employment Exchanges of Pontypridd to call upon skilled coalminers who are unemployed to accept casual work on occasional days to carry advertisers' boards through the streets of Pontypridd, and to stop their unemployment benefit if they refuse this particular work; and, in view of the fact that this enforcement Is causing resentment amongst the mining population of Pontypridd, will he undertake to put a stop to this practice? 
The only answer given by the Minister was this:
Certain colliery labourers and others fit for light employment only, were offered casual work of this nature on one occasion recently. The claims of those who refused the offer were referred to the chief insurance officer who allowed benefit to continue."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1926; cols. 1191–2, Vol. 193.]
It is quite evident from the reply given by the Minister that either he was not fully informed by his local officials of the real facts of the case, or else he failed altogether to realise the importance of the issue which was raised. A very large number of miners who were unemployed in Pontypridd were ordered, during February last, on several occasions, to take up casual employment as sandwich men. The local officials connected with the Employment Exchanges had picked out a number of partially disabled miners whose disablement was due either to accidents in mines or the disease known as nystagmus. Under the Unemployment Acts all men who are partially disabled are liable to take light employment, but it is also understood that such light employment should be reasonably suitable for them, or reasonably comparable with their own trade. In this case the Employment Exchange officials told off a number of men suffering from nystagmus to go to a certain shop in the town which had been
opened by a London firm of clothiers, and they were engaged to parade the streets for a period of from seven to 10 hours per day. Most of these men, I am glad to say, refused to do this work. Most of them are men with families, and they have been out of work for years. A few of them were absolutely bullied into taking this work, otherwise they were told that they would lose their unemployment benefit, and some of those who refused the work were actually refused their unemployment benefit. Some of them had been out of employment for many months, and some for years.
There is in this particular district and in other districts where there is industrial depression very little likelihood of light employment being found at all, and those who take on this work are generally paid 6d. per hour for 10 hours, or 5s. a day for carrying for 10 hours these heavy boards through the main streets. Another lot of these men were paid 8d. an hour for seven hours. What I cannot understand is the mentality of the Employment Exchange officials deliberately selecting men suffering from nystagmus for this particular kind of work. The town of Pontypridd has very narrow and busy streets, and even if the men selected were in a good state of health, to carry heavy boards about of this description is a great task. These men were not able-bodied men, but they were partially disabled and suffering from nystagmus which is one of the most distressing diseases contracted in the mining industry. They suffer from this disease as the result of many years' work underground, and it is mainly due to the effect on the eyes of the miners' lamps while they are at work. It is easy to detect men suffering from this disease, because their eyes twitch in a very distressing way, and they have to hold their heads very high even in normal walking. A man in that state of health is certainly not fit to do that kind of work. In addition to that, even if the pay had been good, even if there had been no financial objection and the job had not been dangerous, the chief and sufficient ground of objection is that sandwich-men's work is degrading for anybody; and when it is remembered that these men were miners, who had been in the business all their lives, who had brought up large families, and were in
this condition through no fault of their own, it will be realised what it must have meant.
Those of us who are provincial Members, on coming to London for the first few times, are struck, when we walk in the public streets, with the large army of men employed as sandwich-men. One of the first impressions I had, as a young lad coming to this City, was the horror of thinking that human beings were carrying these boards about in the streets in that and I believe that even in London the opinion generally is that the man who takes up this kind of job does so as his last resort, because he is down and out. I ask the House to appreciate what must be the mental effect upon people in the provinces and in our small towns. I can say, as regards my own district and throughout South Wales, and I believe I can say, from my experience of going up and down the country, throughout Great Britain, that everyone looks upon the man who is forced to become a sandwich-man as one who has reached the depths of poverty and social degradation.
When I tell the House that some of the men carrying these boards were men well on in years, 60 or 65 years of age, with grown sons and daughters, some of them grandfathers, and their sons came home from their own employment in the pits and saw their old fathers carrying these boards in the streets, the House will appreciate their feeling in the matter. Strongly as their sons felt, I can assure the House that the feeling of their womenfolk was even more bitter, and if the womenfolk of Pontypridd could have got hold of the officials responsible, they would have treated them in the way they deserved. I can assure the Minister that nothing in the administration of unemployment benefit in South Wales has created stronger resentment than this foolish policy of the local officials in employing those men in this way. I have received strong protests in letters recording official resolutions passed by the miners' lodges in my Division on this matter.
It is true that on the 24th March the Minister, in reply to my question, pointed out that the insurance officer for the area, on the matter being referred to him, had ruled that benefit should be continued to
those miners who had refused this task, but that reply does not meet the case. All it does is to prove that the local officials had acted wrongly. I think his reply on the 24th March reveals, if I may say so with due respect, that the Minister had not been given the opportunity of realising the seriousness of the matter. It might appear small on the surface, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, if it is allowed to continue any longer in the mining districts, he will have the biggest surprise of his life. The House has the right to know to-night, and I have the right to know, as the Member for the constituency concerned in this particular case, whether the Minister approves or does not approve of the action of his local officials in putting miners on to this work at all.
This case goes to prove that there are still officials in charge of the administration of unemployment benefit who are wholly out of touch with the spirit of the Acts, and are ignorant of and indifferent to the self-respect which is characteristic of the British working class. It goes to prove that the callous administration of the Unemployment Insurance Acts is growing under the present Government, and I believe there is no limit to their ruthless policy of economising at the expense of the unemployed, if they are unchallenged in their administration. I want to say, finally, and I can say this with absolute certainly, that the British miners resent this insult to their self-respect, and they will take their own course to put a stop to it if we cannot get a definite assurance from the Minister to-night that he will put a stop to it himself. I hope he is not going to waste time by saying it is an isolated case. If it is, I hope it will remain an isolated case, it does reveal what we complain of in other respects, namely, that there are officials who do not understand the spirit of unemployment administration properly, and, when the Minister gets striking instances of this kind, he ought to see to it that they are put a stop to. I trust, therefore, that he will give us a definite assurance to-night.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): The first thing I should like to do is to acknowledge the hon. Member's courtesy in his treatment of me, because he was raising this point on what. I think, was his only opportunity
before we separated for the Easter holidays, and when I asked him to defer it, he very kindly did so. I thank him for doing so, because on the previous occasion I was not feeling up to much additional work. I then endeavoured to assure him that I would be only too glad if he would raise it on the first possible occasion after the resumption of Parliament. I do not know exactly how to account for the difference in the facts, but if the case were exactly as it was stated by the hon. Member, I too should have felt inclined to criticise it. I would only ask the House to hear the facts as I have been able to ascertain them by inquiry since the hon. Member raised the point. It was really this, that a firm asked for a certain number of men to carry the sandwich boards in the streets, and when a case of that kind is brought before the Exchange—I am not talking about the question of benefits at the moment—it is the duty of the Exchange to offer the jobs to people who would want them. That is what, I understand, the Exchange did. They offered them to about 15 men. About six men refused to take them. I think two were not really suitable, and seven took them. I think it was offered to one who came and asked for it. He was, as a matter of fact, a motor-car driver. There were one or two people who had been unconnected with colliery work. Otherwise those to whom it was offered were colliery labourers and light employment cases.
I have been approached by hon. Members opposite to find some sort of work for people who on account of nystagmus or for some other reason cannot follow the usual mining employment. From that point of view I have had their cases on my mind, but it is not possible under the conditions of the present day to find the same number of light jobs about a colliery as was formerly the case, and it is difficult to get suitable work elsewhere for that particular kind of case. That is the reason why these jobs were offered to these cases. I think, with one possible exception, it was a thing for which they were physically fit, apart from the nature of the employment. I agree that no one who Ss not hard up would want to be a sandwich-man. I do not say it is
degrading. Whether it is degrading depends on the character of the person. But that is the reason why it was offered and it is precisely the kind of reason that had been put before me by hon. Members, that wherever possible jobs should be put in the way of light employment men. I have enquired further since the hon. Member raised the case by way of question, and I can assure him that so far as all the information I have been able to collect goes, the facts varied—I do not know how the difference arises—from those he has given me to-night. In the first place, I am quite definitely assured that there was no question of trying to bully the men into taking the jobs. Let no hon. Member think that I am passing any opinion of approval or otherwise as to the pay, but it was not a job at 5d. per hour for ten hours.

Mr. MARDY JONES: 6d. per hour.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It was, as far as I know, the recognised rate that there was in various towns in South Wales, which was 6s. per day for an eight-hours job. If anyone asks me whether that is magnificent pay for such employment, I do not pretend that it is any such thing.

Mr. JONES: I ant not raising so much the point as to the rate of pay. I am raising the whole principle of whether sandwich work is to be applicable to miners in the future as in that case.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: All I would say in reply to the hon. Member is that it is the duty of the Exchange to offer such jobs as are going, and I always tell them to do so. They were quite right in offering jobs of this kind, because of the appalling difficulty there is, when there is hardship and unemployment about, in finding work for hard cases. It was not a case, as far as I am aware, of bullying. I do not believe that any officer would wish to bully men into taking jobs in the way which, quite sincerely, the hon. Member has suggested. As a matter of fact, they were not refused benefit when they refused the work. I am trying to put the ease in its proper perspective, because I do riot think it is such a great matter as the hon. Member thinks.
When they refused the work, all that was done, and quite rightly, was to refer the matter to the chief insurance officer. Benefit was only suspended for reference to the chief insurance officer as a borderline case. He considered the matter and allowed the benefit to go on. That is the whole matter. I can assure the hon. Member that I would not wish to put an insult upon anybody, and this was not intended as an insult. We have to offer the jobs that are going. When the job in this case was offered certain men refused it and others accepted it. One or two people definitely asked for it on their own volition. In respect of those who refused it, the case was merely referred to the chief insurance officer, who on consideration allowed the benefit to continue. I hope that with that explanation the matter will be put in its proper light. That is the information which I have been able to glean from the locality.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: There appears to be a very definite conflict of opinion and evidence between the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Mardy Jones) and the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that there was nothing in the nature of bullying. May I ask him whether the men concerned, apart from the officials, have been asked to give their account of the interview at the Employment Exchange and whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to consider holding a formal inquiry into the allegations made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd? It is of vital importance that people who have, unfortunately, to go to the Exchanges should be guaranteed that they shall have their position clearly and sympathetically considered, without any allegations arising, such as have been made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd that they have been bullied. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has any information from the men concerned as to their view of what happened at the interview, and whether he will have a formal inquiry into the matter?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I did not inquire directly of the men concerned, but I have had inquiries made on the spot from the officials. If the hon. Member will give me any substantial facts as to any unfair treatment, I will very gladly have further inquiries made.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: There are eases all over the country.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member says, "All over the country." I respectfully deny that. If the charge is made that this is another instance of the callous administration of the Insurance Act I deny that there is any desire to treat these people carelessly or callously, or to bully them at all. I absolutely deny that. If any case of ill-treatment is brought to my notice I will gladly do what I can to have it investigated. I agree that men are not all saints, on the one side, nor are they all sinners on the other. There is a certain amount of give and take, and I have no doubt that not every applicant for benefit has addressed the whole of his language in polite phraseology. I have no doubt there is a certain amount of sharpness, but that is another thing altogether, and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) knows that all people are not saints, and that all people are not sinners, and that a man, being an ordinary human being, is subject to change. But there is no evidence of any general callous treatment in dealing with these unemployed people, and if there is any case which the hon. Gentleman can bring to my notice, I shall be just as ready to deal with it as he himself. I have given the best answer I possibly can on the present occasion, and I hope it will satisfy the hon. Member.

Mr. MARDY JONES: The right hon. Gentleman has not really replied to the point. We want to know as miners, and if he does not answer us to-night he will have to answer the Miners' Federation. We strongly object in principle to any miner being called upon to do sandwich-men work, and I say frankly that, law or no law, the next official who suggests it in South Wales will be ducked in the river absolutely. We will not stand it.

Mr. STEPHEN: I wish to ask whether the Minister can give an assurance that at any of the Exchanges, if a man refuses to undertake sandwich work, there will be a ruling that there is no necessity for the case to be referred to the insurance officer?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not going to give any general understanding on any hypothetical case. As to the allegation of bullying, may I point out that the same thing can be done on two sides? If a statement is made that any manager who does a thing of which the hon. Member does not approve, is to be ducked, it seems to me that the hon. Member is not encouraging in others that same self-restraint which he says is desirable in the staff of Employment Exchanges.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is righteous indignation.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is a question as to what is righteousness and what is indignation, but that is not the way to encourage people—

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.